Full text of "Talk among the dragonflies and dalmations: an investigation of communicative competence in a pre-kindergarten classroom: a dissertation"

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from
Lesley University, Sherrill Library

http://www.archive.org/details/talkamongdragonfOOIaur

LUDCKE LIBRARY
Lesley University
3 n Street

CarriDndge, iViA 02138-2790

FOR REFERENCE

Do Not Take From This Room

TALK AMONG THE DRAGONFLIES AND DALMATIONS:

AN INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

IN A PRE-KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM

A DISSERTATION

Submitted by

LAUREN FOLEY GOLDBERG

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

LESLEY UNIVERSITY

October 25

2007

Abstract

A year- long ethnographic study of young children's language was conducted in a
pre-kindergarten classroom. The investigation focused on the teachers' direct instruction
and the children's emerging communicative competence in the rules and structure of
group conversation. The class "Morning Meeting" was recorded once or twice a week for
the entire school year; a subset of these recordings formed the data set for analysis. Of
particular interest were communication behaviors that emphasized the growth of a sense
of membership and community within the group as well as evidence that the children had
learned conventions for turn-taking, topic maintenance, and solidarity. Results indicated
that the children's communicative competence improved, and that they learned non-
verbal signals as well as spoken conventions for group conversation.

TALK AMONG THE DRAGONFLIES AND DALMATIONS:

AN INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

IN A PRE-KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2

THE MORNING MEETING 4

I: DEVELOPMENTAL AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT FOR THIS RESEARCH 8

Social and Linguistic Development 19

Culture and Conventions of Behavior 32

Previous Research in Classroom Language 48

II: DESIGN OF STUDY 62

Description of Research Setting 63

Characteristics of Participant Group 65

Data Gathering Process 65

Recording and Transcription Process 67

Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Transcription 68

Ethical Considerations 75

Selection of Discourse Behaviors 76

III: RESULTS 87

Solidarity 87

Ratification 98

Turn-Taking and Topic Management 108

IV: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH 123

Possibilities for Further Research 123

Implications for Curriculum and Instruction 126

REFERENCES 130

APPENDIX 134

Acknowledgements

Children's voices are the soundtrack of classroom life. Laughter, exclamations,
conversations, and songs create auditory texture and energy throughout a school building.
For a year, it was my privilege to be a member of the pre-kindergarten community that is
described in the following pages. The children and their teachers welcomed me each
morning and allowed me to record their daily routines. I am grateful for their honesty,
authenticity, and expressiveness, and to the parents for giving me permission to include
all the children in my study. Without the willing and supportive participation of these
families, this research would not have been possible.

Jeanna Reidy and Alice Zamore, the teachers, are my friends and colleagues. I
offer them not only thanks, but my deepest respect for the thoughtful, expert, and
empathetic care they give to their students. Jeanna and Alice gave freely of their time and
knowledge as I organized data, analyzed children's remarks, and examined the purpose
and meaning of classroom activities. They shared stories, provided follow-up details, and
reviewed my findings with me.

From the beginning of my doctoral study, Head of School Lenesa Leana's belief
in the importance of research in schools in general, and her enthusiasm about this project
in particular, have bolstered my confidence. I have also been privileged to work with Dr.
Christine Price and Dr. Erna Place, whose patience, knowledge of children, and senses of
humor have buoyed me through a wide variety of professional and academic milestones.

My doctoral experience at Lesley has been characterized by a pervasive sense of
collegiality. Classmates, friends, administrators, students, and faculty have all offered

support, interest, time, resources, suggestions, and encouragement. Judith Cohen is my
senior advisor and the chair of my dissertation committee; her knowledge of narrative
and her insights into the cultural and social implications of my work have been
invaluable. Branca Ribeiro's expertise as a discourse analyst and linguist has been crucial
in expanding my understanding of these fields. Catherine Snow's wealth of experience
and background in literacy and children's language acquisition provided critical details
and examples of best practices in classroom research. Geoff Freed at WGBH contributed
technical expertise in the use of the MAGPIE closed captioning tool. Special thanks also
go to Lisa Fiore, who guided me through two semesters of independent studies in social
development, and to Caroline Heller, who has served as an unofficial advisor since the
inception of this project.

The Morning Meeting

On a cloudy morning in late May, ten of Mrs. Young 's eleven pre-kindergarteners
are gathered around the classroom rug for their morning meeting ^Throughout this
document, the names of the teachers and students have been changed to protect their
privacy). It is time for the students to hear the morning message and review the schedule
for the day. "Who can do the first line in our greeting? " asks Mrs. Young. "This is one
we haven 't done in awhile. You 've seen it before. The first line in our greeting.
Hannah? "

Hannah reads the first line of the message on the white board: "Konichiwa,
Butterflies. "

Mrs. Young repeats the greeting: "Konichiwa, Butterflies. I haven 't drawn the
picture in so long, so I decided that I would draw the picture today instead of writing, "
she says.

Nestor pipes up with a question. "Is that Chinese? " he asks.

Mrs. Young responds, "Japanese. You were really close, though, Nestor. "

"You know what? " asks Nial. "I went to a Japanese restaurant last
night. "

" Well, guess what? " says Nicholas. I know Jap — / kind of speak
Japanese. "

Mrs. Young picks up on this last comment. "What words do you know? "
she asks Nicholas. "Or, what are some of the words you know? "

"Actually, it's really Spanish, " Nicholas says.

"Oh, it 's Spanish, " says Mrs. Young, with a smile.

" Do you know what this means? " Nicholas continues. "Hola ninos. "

" Hola ninos, " repeats Mrs. Young. "I do, but what about... "she
indicates the other children in the group.

"It means 'hello kids, ' " says Nicholas.

"Or, 'hello, children, '" says Mrs. Young.

"I know how to count in Irina 's language, " says Caroline.

"Spanish, " says Irina, while Caroline counts, "Uno, dos — "

"Well, it's not Irina 's language, " clarifies Mrs. Young, "because what
other language does Irina speak? "

"English, " says Irina.

"English, " repeats Mrs. Young. "So it's one of the languages that Irina
knows how to speak, right? But the language is Spanish. "

Exchanges like the one above occur regularly in this pre-kindergarten classroom.
Although a conversation about languages was not part of Mrs. Young's plan for reading
the morning message, she allowed it to occupy several minutes of the morning's agenda
that day. As an experienced teacher, Mrs. Young knows that at any moment in her
classroom, one of her five-year-old students may speak up with a comment, question, or
observation that bears a direct, indirect, or completely irrelevant connection to the
business at hand.

To a casual observer, this conversation may not seem significant, but embedded in
the discussion are foundational elements of social and linguistic competence that will

serve these children throughout their lives. The ability to make connections among ideas
in a topic stream, the knowledge of what information is shared among members of the
group, the awareness of how and when to suggest or expand on a topic, and to recognize
one's own role, as well as the roles of others, in a group conversation — these
conversational behaviors are practiced and reinforced in most social interactions.

I recorded the conversation about Irina's language in the late spring as part of a
short-term study of children's discourse. In my analysis of that small data set (six
recordings), I was struck by the relative sophistication that the children displayed in using
language to establish connections with one another, to take turns, and to contribute to the
ongoing discussion in the classroom. I also noted numerous instances when the teachers
provided explicit instruction or guidance in the conventions and 'rules' of conversation.
These observations led to further questions about the ways in which children learn social
language skills in a classroom setting: How might a child's competence in group
conversation contribute to the development of community? In what ways might direct
instruction in conversational rules promote the children's emerging interactional skills?

Questions about emerging social and linguistic competence could not be
considered from the recordings of children's talk I had collected in May and June; the
conversational skills demonstrated in those morning meetings were the product of eight
months of shared language experiences among the children and their teachers, and it
would be impossible to determine which skills and behaviors had been taught and learned
during the year. To begin to answer my questions, I wanted to observe a group of
children throughout the process of learning and practicing ways of talking together. In
order to learn more about the ways in which teachers guide children in the use of

language to form a community, I conducted a more comprehensive study during the next
school year, beginning on the first day of school and tracking the children's progress
throughout the year. The results of my research are presented in the following pages.

I: Developmental and Theoretical Context for This Research

This study is grounded in a set of assumptions about the social value of
communication in the classroom. Many of these assumptions are based on Western
cultural values of conversation and classroom behavior that will be examined in later
sections of this document. Before placing this study in the context of culture and
classroom, however, it is important to establish a developmental framework for
understanding these children.

The participant group in this study is the pre-kindergarten class in a private
elementary school in suburban Boston. The class consists of 22 children between four
and five years of age, eleven boys and eleven girls. Ten of these children are younger
siblings of students at the school; the other 12 represent new families joining the school
community, although two of these children are the offspring of alumni. They are the
youngest students in a school that culminates at 8 th grade.

The children represent a variety of cultural, social, racial, and family
backgrounds. Specific demographic data are presented in Chapter II, but one area of
sociolinguistic diversity that was particularly interesting to me about this group was the
range of linguistic experiences and conversational styles to which the children had been
exposed before entering the class. Most of the children had attended preschool programs
or day care centers. A few had been in the sole care of parents or nannies. Some come
from homes where more than one language is spoken, while others speak English
exclusively. Some children had begun to read. Others did not yet recognize all the letters
in the alphabet. These differences are known and expected by the teachers each year as
they welcome a new class. The teachers are aware that coming to school represents a

significant milestone for the children and for their parents. Regardless of the child care
environment they have experienced up until now, the children's arrival in the pre-
kindergarten classroom means that they are now going to '"real" school.

Shirley Brice Heath, in her influential work Ways With Words (1983/1996),
observed the linguistic transition that young children experience when they leave the
familiar and known culture of their home environments and come to school. Heath noted,
"Once beyond the preschool years, the children move into school, and descriptions of
their language uses there must similarly focus on boundaries, limits, and features of
communicative situations, and the significance of choices among language uses" (p. 7).
Heath's work focused on sociolinguistic variations between poor and working class white
and black families in the Carolina Piedmont region, and the impact that these differences
had on the children's experiences when they came to school. Heath approached her
investigation as a cultural study, focusing on the ways in which the teachers' linguistic
backgrounds impacted their expectations and interactions with the children. My research
expands on the "communicative situations" Heath examined, as well as the related
linguistic behaviors and choices made within those situations. Rather than focusing on
the ways in which the children's backgrounds differed, however, I chose to investigate
the teachers' impact on the children's emerging conversational competence as a
curricular element: How is it that children learn to navigate the often unspoken rules of
group conversations? In what ways do the teachers identify, describe, and teach these
skills?

The children's developmental stage is a relevant and dynamic factor in this
analysis; as teachers interact with their students, they must be aware of the potentials and

limitations of the children's capabilities in social awareness, linguistic skills, and content
knowledge. Identifying the elements of conversation that are teachable to this group of
students, and determining methods and sequences for teaching these skills is a focus of
this research.

The pre-kindergarten teachers in my research setting, Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis,
have very clear goals for their students' social and behavioral practices, as well as
learning in content and academic areas. Their goals reflect a desire for children to speak
with confidence, to listen to each other, to respond and validate one another's
contributions, to allow others to speak without interruption, to share information about
themselves, and to demonstrate curiosity and interest in one another. In contrast to what
may be the prevailing view of the power structure in schools, in which the teacher is the
dominant voice in the classroom, these teachers place a high value on an egalitarian and
democratic approach. Children's voices and ideas are encouraged, and the events of the
day are structured around social connections and group conversations.

In addition to a comprehensive set of content goals, the curriculum for this class
includes specific objectives for communication and group interaction, and incorporates
direct instruction in behaviors such as non-verbal signals, turn-taking, and group
participation. For some children, the expectation that they will speak for themselves, that
they will look people in the eye, and that they can and should initiate conversation may
be new concepts and may pose a cultural or stylistic difference from their home
environments. Although the faculty recognize and respect these differences, their
expectations for classroom behavior are consistent. While recognizing the possibility that
classroom expectations for conversational behavior might differ from the children's home

experiences, the teachers are also aware that the parents have chosen this school for their
children, and through this choice, have demonstrated their willingness for their children
to participate in a particular model of classroom interaction.

The teachers 1 beliefs are consistent with the school's philosophy; namely, that
conversational and communicative skills are important components in children's learning
and in their becoming independent thinkers as well as leaders. There is a strong emphasis
throughout the school on self-expression, public speaking, and full participation in class
conversations. Kim (2002) characterized these values as particularly American, observing
that "verbal communication has been considered extremely important in achieving
educational goals... In U.S. classrooms, the individual is expected to be an active
participant in class discussion, and speech is essential" (p. 54). Active participation,
through both speaking and listening, are important goals in this classroom. The aim is for
the children to identify themselves as members of a group, and to recognize that such
membership requires participation.

The teachers in my research site recognize and respect the differences in
communication styles and cultural backgrounds that the children bring to school. They
strive to find a balanced approach in their teaching, which protects children's identities
while also encouraging the students to be fully engaged in the class. Often these goals
overlap, as the brief morning meeting conversation about Irina's language demonstrates.
Mrs. Young provided valuable content knowledge about the names of several modern
languages, but she also encouraged the children to share information about themselves
and one another in a safe and encouraging conversational context. The classroom
meeting, in addition to providing an academic start to the day, also presents daily

opportunities for the children's sense of membership in the group to emerge and develop.
Mrs. Young commented,

It's important to know that a certain child may be uncomfortable

looking someone in the eye, giving a greeting, and using a friendly tone.

That's a lot. So maybe it's giving a high-five. Maybe it's just waving.

Maybe it's saying hello and not doing the shake.

In this classroom, the first component that the teachers emphasized in building a
sense of belonging was for everyone to know the names of all the children in the group.
Mrs. Ellis said, "If they know who they're sitting next to, then they'll feel more
comfortable. . . part of the community building is getting to know each child individually,
so I know how to use that to keep them functioning as a member of the group."

Mrs. Young agreed, noting, "that's the priority... that they feel like they're in a
safe environment, that this is circle time for them, and that it's for them, and about them,
and they can participate without fear of rejection, or without taking a risk." At the
beginning of the school year, the teachers worked closely with the children to make sure
that they knew one another's names. They organized games and activities that gave the
children opportunities to learn about one another, while at the same time increasing their
comfort in their new environment. On the second day of school, Emmett did not want to
join the meeting after his mother had said goodbye and left the classroom. "I don't like
school because we don't get to see our mom and dad. You only play with them for a little
bit," he complained. Mrs. Young responded sympathetically, but also reminded Emmett
that he had enjoyed himself at school the day before. In the course of their brief

discussion, Mrs. Young took the opportunity to build community connections by helping
Emmett remember the name of one of his soon-to-be friends:

(For an explanation of the transcription conventions used in this paper, see the
chart on page 74 and in the Appendix).

What's 'Him's' Name?

September 9

Mrs. Young: But then after school/ What happened yesterday? Remember, you

were leaving and you didn't want to leave school, (laughs) Do you remember that?

Yesterday when we were putting you in your car? You liked school so much you

didn't want to leave. So sometimes it will be hard. ] it's fun to be with your mom

and dad.

Emmett: [That's because I like Stephen.

Mrs. Young: Yeah, Stephen is fun, isn't he?

Emmett: (pointing) And him, too.

Mrs. Young: What's him/ do you know 'him's' name?

Emmett: Urn, I don't//

Mrs. Young: HI HI

Voice: Trip!

Emmett: I know his name because his name is Trip and my mom knows his name

because/ because my mom um met his um his mom.

Mrs. Young: So they met before?

Emmett: Uh huh. Um, they were having coffee.

Mrs. Young: Mmm. So it's nice for them to get to know each other. OK, Emmett,

thank you for sharing.

In addition to emphasizing the children's names, another daily exercise that the
teachers used to build community was the attendance procedure. Each group's meeting
area featured a large pocket chart, bordered on its left margin by photographs of the
children, and along the top with cards labeling the days of the week. Each day, the
students were expected to slip a colored card into the pocket next to their picture; the
purpose of this visual display was to show at a glance who was present on a particular
day. After the first two weeks of school, the children were quite familiar with this
procedure, although several still needed reminders to put their cards into the chart before
the meeting began. During the meeting, the teachers referred to the chart for basic
curricular information such as practicing the names of the days of the week, identifying
letters and repeated patterns (the "d-a-y" portion of each day name), counting, and
community building. One morning in the third week of school, two children were missing
from Mrs. Ellis' group at the beginning of meeting:

Where's Russell?

September 2 1

Mrs. Ellis: Now, I have a question for you. Are all our friends here today?

Voices: No. no.

Mrs. Ellis: Lo A ok around the circle. Look at the attendance// Let's see. Are all our

friends here today? Who has an/ If you have an idea what that[

Olivia: [Neal isnt' here.

Mrs. Ellis: You can raise your hand.

Michael: Where's Russell?

Mrs. Ellis: El lie, what do you notice? Are all our friends here today?

Ellie: No, because Neal only has two, and you're supposed to have three if you're

here.

Mrs. Ellis: OK. Three slips of paper. OK, and you noticed Neal only has two. Yes,

Neal has/ a dentist appointment. And he will be in in a little while. He will be in

while we're outside. Or maybe he'll be in while we're coming in to snack. You had

a dentist appointment yesterday, didn't you, Wesley?

Wesley: Yeah.

Mrs. Ellis: You left a little bit early/ to go to that. OK. There is someone whose slip

of paper is up there, but he's not at our meeting. Do you know who that person

might be? If you have an idea, raise your hand.//Michael?

Michael: Where's Russell?

Mrs. Ellis: Where's Russell? That's a great question. Russell is not feeling very well,

so he is down at the nurse's office, trying to figure out if it would be OK to be here

with us, or whether it would be better to go home. So he's in a good place, but

hopefully he'll decide that he's OK and can join us. All right, so, we don't have as

many friends as we have had before.

Mrs. Ellis' remarks on this morning served multiple purposes in developing a
sense of community among her students — of knowing one another, feeling safe together,
and learning with and about one another. This was the first day that anyone had been
missing from the meeting, and Mrs. Ellis was able to explain to the children what would
happen if someone arrived to school late (Neal would come while they were outside, and
would join in whatever activity the children were doing at that time), as well as to discuss

the importance of the nurse's office. This was a place that the children had visited as part
of a tour, but none of the children had yet paid an official visit to Mrs. Nelson, the school
nurse. Russell's visit there, which Mrs. Ellis described as an opportunity for him and Mrs.
Nelson to decide if Russell were well enough to stay at school, presented the nurse's
office as a safe, good spot to go.

This attendance discussion includes an example of the teacher providing direct
instruction in group conversation, which is one of the focus points of my investigation.
After Mrs. Ellis asked the group to notice who was not present, both Olivia and Michael
called out without raising their hands. In response to Olivia's statement ("Neal isn't
here"), Mrs. Ellis turned to her and said, "You can raise your hand." She then addressed
Ellie, who had raised her hand, and asked the same question. Ellie gave a proper response
about Neal. Mrs. Ellis expanded on Ellie' s answer, discussed doctor and dentist visits
with Wesley, then repeated her question about who was missing. This time, she reminded
the children to raise their hands. On his second attempt to participate, Michael did raise
his hand, and Mrs. Ellis called on him right away. This deliberate and specific approach
to teaching group conversation was a consistent feature of the morning meetings in the
classroom throughout the year. Similar lessons in turn-taking, shared knowledge, and
placing value on one another's presence are analyzed further in Chapter III.

Another element that Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young used in building community
through language was the daily greeting. A formal greeting, in the form of a game, a
song, or an activity, was incorporated into each day's morning meeting. Explicit direct
instruction in voice, body language, and tone were incorporated into the lessons about
greetings. Occasionally, the greeting would be tied into a curricular goal, such as

recognizing letters or numbers, building patterns, matching geometric shapes, or naming
colors. Mrs. Young's class had learned and practiced many forms of greeting by January.
During the morning meeting one day late in the month, she brought a color matching
activity as a greeting game. Before the children came into the center of the circle to greet
each other in pairs, she reviewed the greeting "rules" with them:

In Any Language

January 30

Mrs. Young: When you come into the middle to greet your partner, what do you

need to do with your eyes?

Trip: Look.

Mrs. Young: Look where?

Trip: At them.

Mrs. Young: At your partner. What kind of voice do you need to use to greet them?

Trip: Say hello.

Mrs. Young: Yes, you could say hello. What else could you say?

Amanda: Bonjour.

Mrs. Young: What else could you say?

Diana: Hola.

Mrs. Young: Hola. Nicky.

Nicky: Jambo.

Mrs. Young: Jambo. Amanda?

Amanda: Good morning.

Mrs. Young: Good morning. That's right. These are all great ideas. Does your

partner need to say the same thing back to you? No, they can choose their own

way to greet. I'll let you know who's going to greet first so that you don't talk at the

same time. Can you say yours one more time, Anna?

Anna: Namaste (she bows while saying the word).

Mrs. Young: Say just the word for us, Anna.

Anna: What?

Mrs. Young: Just the word that you were saying, without doing the bowing. What

were you saying?

Anna: Namaste.

Mrs. Young: Namaste. And what language is that?

Anna: Indian.

Mrs. Young: Indian. And what do you think it means?

Anna: My mom told me it means hello and good bye.

Mrs. Young: So that's similar to what Ciao is in Italian, right, because that means

hello and goodbye as well.

Anna: It means hello, good bye, love.

Mrs. Young: OK. So that's another way you could greet, Namaste. Be sure you're

using a medium, clear voice when you greet. And I'll let you know who's going to

greet first.

The multi-lingual element of this discussion is notable, but equally important is
Mrs. Young's focus on the non-verbal elements of a proper greeting in this classroom:
looking someone in the eye, using a clear tone of voice, and the individual's choice and

responsibility of selecting the word or message to deliver to one's partner. By this point
in the school year, Mrs. Young did not need to rely on hand-raising as a group
management strategy; the children were accustomed to a discussion such as this, where
each child would have a turn to speak, and they waited for Mrs. Young to turn her eye
gaze to them as an indication that it was their turn to speak. Mrs. Young's specific
instructions and detailed description are focused on a wide range of social and linguistic
behaviors that contribute to the children's emerging competence in verbal and non-verbal
communication. The deliberate way in which this behavior is taught, and the gradual
emergence of mastery by the children, is a focus of this research.

Social and Linguistic Development

This research project is grounded in, and expands upon, work in two broad fields
of study, child development and sociolinguistics. Where previous studies have focused
primarily on children's emerging language skills from a linguistic or developmental point
of view (Bruner, 1983, 1990, Wells, 1986, Ninio and Snow, 1996, Cazden, 1972, 2001),
as a predictor of literacy skills (Michaels and Cazden, 1986, Dickinson and Snow, 1987,
Dickinson, 1991), or from a cultural perspective (Heath, 1983, Kim, 2002), this
investigation seeks to examine classroom conversation as a pedagogical phenomenon.

A study of young children's conversations must take into account their emerging
abilities in social behavior and expressive language. In my investigation of young
children's behavior, it was important to present a profile of the subject group from a
developmental perspective. Secondly, because my study focused on classroom behavior,
I reviewed previous studies of the culture and structure of classroom talk, which served
as important background material. Finally, because it is an investigation of sociolinguistic

behavior, this study refers to adult discourse analysis and employs many terms that are
used and defined differently by linguists, educators, and ethnographers; my examination
and definitions of terminology are derived from a wide variety of research literature.
The connection between children's social cognition and their competence in
discourse is of great significance to my research. Beginning in infancy, children construct
mental schemas for understanding themselves and others as individual beings. As they
become more able to interact with the objects and people who inhabit their environments,
these schemes become more sophisticated. Children learn that they can express their own
thoughts and ideas to others, that others have their own thoughts and ideas, and that
people's thoughts and ideas can be expressed through gestures, actions, and spoken
words. This emerging sense of self and other is a central concept in social development

Social Cognition: Self and Other. As children learn to navigate their way within
larger social contexts, schemas for interaction evolve. In a classroom setting, children
discover that they must accommodate the desires of others through turn taking, rule-
bound games and structured activities, and negotiations with classmates and teachers.
The study of children's emerging sense of self is central to the field of developmental
psychology; a particularly rich area of investigation has focused on when and how
children come to a knowledge of self and other. Piaget (1969, 2000) observed young
children's perceptual behavior, and noted that in the first years of life, they gained the
cognitive capacity to generate and maintain a mental scheme for absent objects, and to
call these objects into their consciousness. The same process, Piaget argued occurred as
children developed an increasingly sophisticated conception of other people. The ability
to understand oneself as a separate being in the world, and to create mental constructions

of other individuals and objects, is a critical step in a child's ability to communicate with
other people.

Inherent in Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis' knowledge about their students is that
these children are fully aware of themselves as individuals, with their own needs, desires,
and knowledge. Part of the teachers' job is to help the children remember that their
classmates also have needs and desires, and that a successful community depends on
everyone's ability to work together.

A related behavior in children's emerging sense of self and other is shared
attention, a phenomenon that begins to develop in very early childhood. Among the
earliest indications of shared attention are two non-verbal behaviors, shared gaze and the
pointing gesture. Bruner (1983), in his discussion of children's language development,
described babies' pointing as a pre-linguistic form of requesting action (p. 93). Once
children learn to talk, and can indicate a distant object through words instead of gestures,
shared attention continues to be a crucial element in conversation, as group participants
must attend to the same idea or visual stimulus. Vygotsky (1978) emphasized pointing as
both a communicative and social gesture, arguing that "the ability or inability to direct
one's attention is an essential determinant of the success or failure of any practical
operation. . .with the help of the indicative function of words, the child begins to master
his attention, creating new structural centers in the perceived situation" (p. 35). The
pointing gesture's evolution into a social and communicative function was representative
of the essential nature of learning as a social process.

In the pre-kindergarten classroom, shared attention is a requirement for a group
meeting. There is an expectation that all the children in a group will listen to and look at

the person who is speaking, or that they will focus on an object or event that is brought to
their collective attention. In their communication with the children, the teachers
employed a variety of cues to direct children's attention; pointing, eye gaze, body
position, clapping patterns, songs, and non-verbal signals were all taught and used
regularly.

French and Song (1998) conducted extensive observations in Korean
kindergartens, with a focus on the role of the teacher in developing children's readiness
skills for school. In their discussion of attentiveness, the researchers described an
"attention management song," which they presented as "a non-punitive means for the
teacher to recall [the children's] attention. It provides children both a reminder that
attention is valued and a routine for refocusing their attention" (p. 422). Similarly, Mrs.
Young and Mrs. Ellis relied on readiness songs and chants to remind the children of
proper listening and attention-oriented behaviors.

Shared attention is a key element in the group talk in my research setting. The
teachers often brought items into the morning meeting for children to observe as a group,
or a topic would be introduced and children would be asked to share their knowledge or
ideas about that subject. Interruptions, in the form of late-arriving classmates,
announcements on the speaker phone, or other such events, would also attract the
attention of the entire group, and were discussed as they occurred.

As children learn to use language, their developing competence provides
opportunities for them to engage and communicate with others as well as to demonstrate
aspects of their cognitive, social, and emotional development. By the time they are four
or five years old (the age of the children in my study), most children have achieved

sufficient fluency in their native language to communicate their basic needs and express
their thought to others (Piaget, 1955, Bruner, 1983, Ninio and Snow, 1996). However,
their mastery of language is still at an immature and incomplete state, and their range of
discourse experiences is limited.

The wealth of research into these areas of development suggests that children
arriving in a pre-kindergarten class are able to recognize themselves as individuals, and
can understand that their classroom is populated by other individuals, each of whom
possesses thoughts, desires, cultural norms, and motivations for action (Wellman, 1990).
The students' abilities to interpret the intentions and behaviors of others, to explain their
own desires and intentions, and to respond to one another in a group setting, are central
areas of attention for their teachers. When children are unable to perform these social and
linguistic skills, the teachers must anticipate or recognize their naivete. The teachers'
responses to these situations, their ability to interpret the children's intentions, provide
instruction or adapt tasks, are a central focus to my research.

Communicative Competence. My investigation was aimed at following the
emergence of communicative competence in the pre-kindergarten children's language
skills. The terms 'linguistic competence' and 'communicative competence' have assumed
significance in the linguistics community, and are relevant to this investigation of
classroom conversation. Hymes (1972) argued that educators and researchers must
consider communicative competence as encompassing more than a speaker's knowledge
of grammar and semantics. Rather, he said, competence should include "whatever else
besides knowledge (e.g., motivation, identification, experience) may be involved in using
knowledge" (p. xxxv), as well as performance skills such as speaking appropriately.

Hymes also equated communicative competence with sociolinguistic competence,
emphasizing competence as "[a child's] ability to participate in its society as not only a
speaking, but also a communicating member" (p. 75). Such competence emerges through
a process of linguistic development, which, according to Chomsky (1980), begins with
"universal grammar... the genetic program, the schematism that permits the range of
possible realizations that are the possible human languages" (p. 234). Competence in
language use incorporated both form and meaning: the ability of a speaker to produce a
statement that conforms to a universal grammar, "now analyzed in terms of a certain
structure of rules, principles, and representations in the mind," (p. 91) along with
performance: "what someone does [with languagejunder specific circumstances" (p.
225). Both of these aspects of analysis are relevant to my investigation, as is the
acquisition of language skills as a foundation for academic success. Dickinson (1991)
connected this competence with literacy, arguing "it is clear that one important aspect of
becoming literate is acquiring the discourse forms required by one's society for reading
and writing" (p. 256). One means of framing my thesis question is to ask, "In what ways
do children's still-emergent skills in grammar, syntax, and conversational interactions
affect their ability to make meaningful and appropriate contributions to the group
discourse, and further, in what ways can their teachers guide the children's acquisition of
these skills?"

In my analysis, I focused on specific conversational features: turn-taking,
interruptions and overlapping speech, topic introduction and topic shift, and verbal and
non-verbal efforts to find personal connections among members of the group. Participants
in a group conversation must be able to demonstrate some form of rule-governed

behavior in order to keep the discussion flowing smoothly. They also must be able to
attend to the topic of the conversation. The categories of remarks, exchanges, and
discourse moves that I selected for my analysis involve both procedural (turn-taking and
interrupting) and meaning-driven (topic selection and personal connection) elements of
conversation. Detailed analysis of these elements appears in Chapter III.

These categories also emphasize the prominent features of classroom
conversation, and are consistent with the recommendations of other educators and
linguistics researchers. Snow and Blum-Kulka (2002) echoed Heath's theory that school-
based language exchanges are different from those at home: "At school, children will
need to learn the new rules for participating — for example, how to volunteer to be called
on, when spontaneous contributions to whole-class discussions are permitted, and when
and how one may talk to peers" (p. 327).

Communicative competence has been described as a speaker's "ability to select,
from the totality of grammatically correct expressions available to him, forms which
appropriately reflect the social norms governing behavior in specific encounters"
(Wardhaugh, 2002, p. 249). This definition highlights the importance of context for
linguistic behavior. For young children, school represents a new context for using
language. In order to participate fully in the life of the classroom, they must learn how to
adapt and expand their existing knowledge of language to fit the demands of the new
setting. Their ability to navigate this new context depends in part on their ability to
discern the social and linguistic norms of the classroom environment.

Mehan (1979) examined the topic of communicative competence in the specific
context of classroom discourse. His definition of "classroom competence" encompasses a
range of skills related to academic content as well as social performance:

Classroom competence involves matters of form as well as of
content. To be successful in the classroom, students not only must know
the content of academic subjects, they must learn the appropriate form in
which to cast their academic knowledge. That is, competent membership
in the classroom community involves employing interactional skills and
abilities in the display of academic knowledge. They must know with
whom, when, and where they can speak and act, and they must provide the
speech and behavior that are appropriate for a given classroom situation.
Students must also be able to relate behavior, both academic and social, to
varying classroom situations by interpreting classroom rules, (p. 133)
Mehan' s description seems to universalize classrooms and the linguistic
expectations held by teachers. His remarks also suggest that the knowledge that students
develop about language in a classroom community is gained through observation and
experience, not through direct instruction. It is my intention to examine the possibility
that such knowledge can be defined and taught deliberately, and that such teaching might
result in observable differences in children's behavior.

Bruner (1983) also defined a set of criteria for effective communication by
children:

Can the child request, can he indicate, can he ingratiate or promise
or support or show respect by the use of communicative means? And can

he meet the conditions that the culture places on speakers who would do

those things— conditions of preparation, sincerity, essentiality, and

affiliation? (p. 18).

Bruner argued that these elements of language are inseparable, and that children
learn them interdependently. Much of Bruner' s work occurred in home-based settings,
where he observed parents and young children interacting on a one-to-one basis; although
his results are highly relevant to the present study, there are obvious differences between
the verbal exchanges that occur in dyads and those that occur among teachers and
students in a group.

Erickson (2004), in his discussion of children's linguistic behaviors, defined
competence in the classroom as the challenge to "produce an utterance (e.g. an answer to
a question or a volunteered comment) that was not only informationally correct but
socially correct as well" (p. 55). This concise definition is particularly apt for my own
research in that it emphasizes not only the importance of coherence (relevance of a
remark to the topic at hand) but also its social value (the impact of interrupting or
speaking out of turn).

In my research setting, both Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young had their own standards
for competence in their students' communications, and their reflections about this
concept resonate with Erickson. These teachers also acknowledged that their young
students are at the beginning stages of mastering these communication skills, and their
own expectations of the children's behavior reflect that knowledge. Mrs. Young said, "I
think a lot of people will say, 'Oh, they can't take turns; they're in pre-K. That's not
realistic' Yes it is. It's realistic that you can give them strategies. And you can empower

them to take the steps in taking turns." Mrs. Ellis observed, "I've had groups where we
can truly sit and have a discussion by the end of the year... when someone breaks in,
they'll respond to my... non-verbal raising my hand and reminding them they need to
raise their hand." These teachers emphasize the value of the social curriculum in their
classrooms, and they devote time each day to providing direct instruction in interactional
skills.

Emerging Friendships and Social Development. Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young
focused much of their attention on the development of friendships among the children in
their classrooms. For both teachers, the word "friend" was used as a generic label for any
child in the classroom, and the teachers actively encouraged the children to build
relationships with each other through play and shared interests. The emergence of true
friendships, in which individuals actively sought one another out as playmates, shared
experiences, and created fantasies together, was a component of the overall creation of
community in the classroom. The children used the word 'friend' freely from the
beginning of the year, with varying degrees of sophistication.

William Corsaro (1981), who studied young children's peer relationships,
grounded his analysis of children's interactions in their early social connections with their
parents. In Corsaro' s view, it was these earliest relationships that provided a foundation
for children's emerging skills and understanding of social norms and procedures for
relating to others. Once children moved beyond their immediate family connections and
into a wider realm of peer relationships, "children learn that they can negotiate social
bonds on the basis of their personal needs and social contextual demands" (Corsaro,
1981, p. 207). Corsaro felt that social knowledge emerged "in response to the demands

of specific interactive situations" (p. 209). Therefore, he argued, we must not only attend
to developmental patterns, but also to the environment and relationships in which
children find themselves (p. 209).

One aspect of Corsaro's work that is of particular interest to my research is his
discussion of children's language around friendship. In his analysis, Corsaro documented
children's use of the word "friend" and the various naive conceptions of this term from
which they seemed to be operating. He found that children frequently used the word
"friend" as a means of gaining or denying access to play situations. He also found that
children's use of friendship terms seemed less focused on personal qualities of potential
friends than on physical proximity and situational conditions. He found that children
identified other children as "friends" because they played together, but not because they
shared interests or recognized sympathetic characteristics in each other. Corsaro's
transcripts showed that children offered and withdrew friendship status frequently;
declarations of non-friendship were often based on desires to protect a play event that
was already in process and to exclude an interloper, or alternately, to establish one's
legitimacy for entering such a play event:

For these children, friendship often serves specific integrative
functions in the nursery school, such as gaining access to, building
solidarity, and mutual trust in, and protecting the interactive space of play
groups, and is seldom based on the children's recognition of enduring
personal characteristics of playmates (Corsaro, 1981, p. 235).
Corsaro's findings raise an important question about the gap between children's
use of contrasted with their true understanding of common social-linguistic elements in

the classroom. However, despite the language that children use or the ways in which they
invoke the term "friend" in their interactions, it appears that children do in fact form
meaningful friendships with each other at young ages, and that these relationships
provide a foundation for children to develop sophisticated skills in social competence.

Judy Dunn (2004) also investigated the emergence of young children's
friendships. One area of interest in her studies of children's peer-oriented fantasy play
lies in its relationship to individuation and other minds. She commented that

The significance of the development of this capacity for sharing an
imaginative world lies partly in what it tells us about the children's
capacity to recognize the intentions of another person, sharing their focus
of attention, and coordinating their communications about these shared
intentions (p. 25).

In the context of the primary school classroom, it seems critical that teachers
encourage and support emerging friendships among their young students. As noted
above, a recurring example of the teachers' efforts in this area occurred each day around
the attendance. The teachers made a point of noticing and speaking about children who
were absent, and of greeting returnees warmly after they had been away from school, as
this exchange from late November illustrates:
Three Friends Are Not Here
November 29

Mrs. Ellis: Alright. Today, we are so lucky, because our friend Wesley has returned
from [names family vacation spot] and his time away. So welcome back, we are so
happy to see you. //Urn, today, um, we still have three friends who are not here.
And I believe all of...

Olivia: Stephen!

Mrs. Ellis:. ..them are still sick. Stephen is one of them, Olivia, who else?

Walter: Michael

Olivia: Neal

Mrs. Ellis: Michael, and Neal. Yeah. Those three. So/ that is what our attendance

says.

Mrs. Ellis' deliberate use of the word "friend" to label the children, her attention
and warm welcome to Wesley upon returning to class, and her encouragement to the
children to name their missing classmates all served to build a sense of community and
belonging for the whole group. Mrs. Ellis' intentions aligned with Dunn's (2002)
observations that

In the context of a friendship in which they care about the other child, are

concerned for the feelings of the other, and want to maintain the

relationship, children attempt to conciliate, negotiate, make compromises

more frequently and with more success than in their other relationships (p.

157).

It is certainly a logical conjecture that individuals will make a greater effort to
negotiate and conciliate with others for whom they feel affection or concern. Within the
bounded structure of the family network, children learn the conventions and expectations
of a certain (and small) participant framework; with the exception of children who live in
conditions of abuse or neglect, these conventions are practiced with people for whom
they feel reciprocal affection and concern. However, as they move out of the familiar
surroundings of home and into the larger and less predictable environment of school,
children are confronted with the challenge of learning how their known strategies for

interaction must be adapted or refined to meet the conventions of their new group. One of
the focal points of my research was to observe situations in which the teachers provided
direct instruction in the use of various discourse tools for negotiating social interactions. I
was interested to observe how explicitly the teachers addressed certain conversational
behaviors, and intrigued by the possibility that their lessons might be reproducible in
other settings, especially if these instructional practices might ease the linguistic
transition to school for children from a variety of backgrounds.

Vasconcelos and Walsh (2001) conducted a study of community-building in a
Portuguese kindergarten class. The practices of the teacher, "Ana," are remarkably
similar to those of Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis. Vasconcelos and Walsh argue that "a
critical challenge facing early schooling ...is to assist children in forming both a sense of
community as well as an actual community in the classroom. Community begins in
personally meaningful experience" (p. 501).

Culture and Conventions of Behavior

My research focused on a specific component of the children's day, but I
considered the morning meeting as just that — a portion of a much larger experience in
which the children took part each day. Beyond the morning meeting, the children
engaged in social interactions and conversation in pairs, small groups, and large groups
with and without direct teacher involvement. They played games of their own design and
also played with the toys and learning materials in the classroom and the playground. All
of these interactions involved language to some degree, but they also involved other
elements of social connection: turn-taking, rule-setting, fairness, role-playing, identity
issues, status, relationship building, and awareness of others' intentions and ideas. I

examined the literature related to children's emerging social behavior with the purpose of
establishing a context for their emerging conversational skills.

The classroom is not only a new linguistic community, but a new social
community as well, one that is defined in part by spoken and unspoken rules of discourse.
Bruner (1990) emphasized the critical nature of achieving competence in social
interactions:

Our culturally adapted way of life depends upon shared meanings
and shared concepts and depends as well upon shared modes of discourse
for negotiating differences in meaning and interpretation... the child does
not enter the life of his or her group as a private and autistic sport of
primary processes, but rather as a participant in a larger public process in
which public meanings are negotiated. And in this process, meanings are
not to his own advantage unless he can get them shared by others (p. 12).
For many experts, children's emerging skills and mastery of discourse structures
represent an important aspect of social development. Vygotsky (1978) believed that
"human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children
grow into the intellectual life of those around them" (p. 89). Blum-Kulka and Snow
(2002) reiterated this point, arguing that ''to develop critical thinking and learn to
participate in the social construction of knowledge, children need to experience multiple
perspectives, such as those available in multiparty, multigenerational and peer talk" (p.
9). For many young children, the classroom, as one of the first social contexts that they
encounter beyond their immediate family, is a significant environment in which these
multiparty and peer-oriented conversations occur. The classroom group contains

comparatively more people than a typical family and frequently involves situations where
interactions occur simultaneously. In such a setting, children must learn to navigate
interactions and linguistic exchanges that are quite different from their experiences at
home.

Nicolopoulou (2002) has conducted numerous investigations of children's peer
group interactions. Her research has led her to conclude that "peer group interactions can
serve as a powerful context for promoting young children's language development, and
in particular their narrative development... children, like adults, also create, maintain, and
participate in fields of shared activity that provide both resources and motivations for
development, including narrative development" (pp. 117-118). Her statements confirm
the premise of my research, namely, that communicative competence informs children's
social skills in a variety of interactions. The morning meeting is a daily example of a
"field of shared activity," in which the children gradually built a set of common stories,
experiences, rituals, and a sense of group identity.

Bruner (1983) held a similar perspective on the importance of cultural or
community-based behaviors as part of social and linguistic development, and emphasized
the importance of learning the specific behaviors and manners of behavior related to
various forms of interaction. Bruner related some of these behaviors to cultural
conventions, focusing on the process of requesting as an example:

The conventions of indicating and requesting... are not so much directly
linguistic as broadly cultural. When to request, how to prepare the ground, how to
address a requestee in order to form a felicitous link — these are what the child
learns through interacting (p. 131).

The children in this classroom group recognized their teachers as sources of both
authority and nurturing. As a rule, they followed instructions and looked to the teachers
for approval and guidance in their daily activities. At the same time, the teachers
demonstrated their willingness to listen to and respond to the children's requests or
attempts to introduce topics into classroom conversations, illustrating Vygotsky's (1978)
observation that "The child's ability to control another person's behavior becomes a
necessary part of the child's practical activity" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 29). Nicolopoulou
focused her analytical discussion on this same concept, highlighting the importance of
learning social and linguistic conventions as a means of engaging meaningfully with
others: "As children come to realize the possible purposes and satisfactions that can be
pursued in narrative activity... they are driven to learn and appropriate the narrative forms
culturally available to them and to turn these to their own ends" (Nicolopoulou, 2002, p.
122). Interrelational skills, especially those related to sociolinguistic competence, are
central in the creation of self-identity in such a group.

Within a classroom, as in many social groups, children have the
opportunity and the challenge of creating and presenting "identities," as
individuals and as members of the group. Different interactional situations may
demand that an individual assume a more dominant or a more submissive role,
and participants need to learn how to interpret the conditions of a situation .

In my review of research, I read studies of children's peer relationships in
classrooms and other social settings. Many of these studies focused on the
characteristics of children's fantasy play, which was not my primary interest.
However, in the course of their studies, these researchers examined the evolution

of relationships and social competence, and their observations in those areas are
relevant to my work. Amy Kyratzis, who has studied children's narratives and
social negotiations in the classroom, noted that "one of the most central aspects of
identity is one's position or ranking in a relevant social group, be it a peer group,
friendship group, or family" (Kyratzis, 1998, p. 429). Through a series of
observations of children's narratives during free play in a preschool classroom,
Kyratzis documented the ways in which speakers positioned themselves within a
group. In one scenario, a group of girls played out an interaction among a group
of women friends. Kyratzis' evaluation of the children's drama included the
notation that "in terms of social-interactive functions, we see the girls using these
narratives to position themselves with respect to one another and to form
alliances" (Kyratzis, 1988, p. 440). She also observed collaborative behavior,
noting that particularly in the case of such dramatic "pretend" play, the generation
of stories became a way of building friendships and clarifying their own
identities. "The girls are also constructing possible selves in their story. In their
protagonists, valued qualities held by the girls can be seen" (Kyratzis, 1998, p.
441).

Nicolopoulou (2002) presented similar findings and analysis in her
investigation of peer-group interactions. In her studies of children's storytelling
and the dramatization of these stories, she found that "the girls' stories...
portrayed characters embedded in networks of stable and harmonious
relationships... In contrast, the boys' stories were characteristically marked by
conflict, movement, and disruption" (p. 127).

The exploration of self through interaction with others is, arguably, a
hallmark of the human condition. For young children, early interactional
experiences often center around pretend play with peers or structured activities
led by adults, both of which are features of early childhood classrooms. Through
her research, Kyratzis provided clear examples of the ways in which young boys
and girls construct their social selves. She noted that for boys, this process "often
occurs through the physical enactment of possible social selves, while for girls,
self-construction is more often through verbal agreement about possible social
selves ... through language" (p. 451). The collaborative nature of this exchange is
important as part of the child's emerging sense of him or herself not only as an
individual, but as a participant in a social group.

Pretend play is only one of many game forms in which children gain
social knowledge. Bruner emphasized the importance of repetitive games as a
type of experience in which children learn, and adults support language
development. For Bruner, the gradual evolution of the game from adult-
controlled to child-controlled was a key factor in the child's learning about social
interactions. "One sets the game, provides a scaffold to assure that the child's
ineptitudes can be rescued, or rectified by appropriate intervention, and then
removes the scaffold part by part as the reciprocal structure can stand on its own"
(Bruner, 1983, p. 60).

Although Bruner's investigation focused on children under the age of
two, this process of scaffolding is a central feature of his theory of curriculum
development and a relevant foundation for reinforcement of social skills in a pre-

kindergarten classroom. Dunn (2002), whose research has focused on the
interactions of children in peer and sibling relationships, argued that "being able
to cooperate, plan, hold back till it is your turn, see the other child's goal — these
are skills and achievements that are important for playing all sorts of other kinds
of game with a friend" (p. 29). It would follow that these are skills which are not
only valuable in game frameworks, but in all other types of paired and group
interactions, such as those that occur in daily classroom situations.

Many of the games and routines that Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis
incorporated into their morning meetings involved skills such as planning,
cooperation, waiting for a turn, or focusing on the remarks of others, and often
they were presented in carefully orchestrated steps so that the children could
learn gradually how to engage in intricate exchanges. One day in early spring,
Mrs. Ellis brought a branch of pussy willow to class for the children to observe.
She also taught a new song to the children. With the introduction of both the
branch and the song, Mrs. Ellis gave precise and clear instructions, guiding the
children to be aware of their own bodies and helping them be aware of the
possible consequences of their actions:

Pussy Willows

March 20

Mrs. Ellis: So I have a little song that we can sing about pussy willows, and it's
actually a tune you even know, because we sing something else. Yes, I'm going to
pass it around and people can feel how soft these are. Cause they're like, they're
like little kitties.

Stephen: They're called willows.

Mrs. Ellis: They're called pussy willows.

Voice: Cause they're a pussy cat

Michael: I saw a country mouse yesterday.

Mrs. Ellis: OK, let's all stand up and I'll teach. Well, first I'll sing it for you and then

we'll stand up. How's that? (she sings the song, which includes gestures of 'scat!')

So, that's what it sounds like. Stand up and let's try it.

Voices: (overlapping)

Mrs. Ellis: Now, the way we do the scat. Ok, but you have to be careful, cause if

you do it too wide, what's going to happen? Olivia. No, so we're going to do it

carefully. So//when we get to 'down, down, down, down,' what do you think you

do?

Ellie: (sits down.)

Mrs. Ellis: Yeah. Ellie knows. OK. (sings 'down, down, down, down'). Now, (to

Walter) if you do it that wide, you're going to hit me, So think about that next time.

All right, let's start off (begins singing)

Choral: (the children repeat each line as Mrs. Ellis sings)

Voice: I think someone jumped on it.

Mrs. Ellis: OK, good planning, excellent!

Anita: Can we feel it now?

Mrs. Ellis: Yes, actually let's pass it around

Mrs. Ellis: OK. We're going to do three-count turns. One... two... three. Think

about what does it feel like. Does it feel soft like a cat, a cat's fur?

Michael: What's this?

Mrs. Ellis: It's a bush. Pussy willow comes on a bush. So those are the branches.

Michael: But how come they're so soft?

Mrs. Ellis: I don't know. That's the flower. No, it's not quite the flower. It's the bud.

It blossoms into a flower.

Voices: (many voices overlap)

Mrs. Ellis: They are like the buds. One. ..two. ..three .Want to pass it//

Estie: I had three Chineses on my vacation. Chinese are very very very. They have

pussy willows.

Mrs. Ellis: They do? Ok. Urn, Emily, are you doing what you can to stay in your

space and not bother others?

Emily: Walter's still not doing it.

Mrs. Ellis: You always have the choice to not do anything back. All right? We'll try

to remind Walter of that same thing too.

Mrs. Ellis' pussy willow lesson incorporated multiple levels of
instruction in game-playing, rule-setting, turn-taking, and general classroom
behavior. At the beginning of the song, Mrs. Ellis was direct: "first I'll sing it for
you and then we'll stand up." This type of modeling is also a form of
scaffolding, as Mrs. Ellis provided the instructions and purpose of the activity in
small segments. She also anticipated the possibility that the children might hit
each other if they were not careful when they gestured with their hands. As they
began the game, Olivia and Walter swung their arms wide, unaware that they
might intrude on their classmates' space. With both of these children, Mrs. Ellis
was explicit in her instructions as to how they should move, and she explained
clearly what might happen if they moved their hands in a rough or excessive

manner. When they finished the song, she gave guidelines for the children to
manage their turn touching the pussy willow: "We're going to do three-counts,"
she instructed, meaning that each child could hold the branch for a count of
three. As the children passed the blossoms around, Mrs. Ellis remained focused
on the children's turn-taking and body control, choosing not to elaborate on
Estie's enigmatic comment about ''three Chineses." (See my discussion of this
remark on page 43)

This lesson is a clear demonstration of direct instruction and
establishment of rules for both conversation and group behavior. By this time in
the year, the children had participated in similar songs with gestures and body
movements, as well as "pass-around" activities in the circle. Although Mrs. Ellis
could rely on some of the children in the group to participate appropriately, other
children needed further reminders. Bruner and Dunn observed the earlier stages
of this process when they studied mothers and older siblings providing
scaffolding for young children in the fundamentals of turn-taking and shared
attention. When children go to school, primary school teachers must continue
this instruction, expanding the children's repertoires of conventions. The
methods, and effectiveness, of these instructional approaches, form a focus of my
work with pre-kindergartners and their teachers.

Participation Frameworks. Social and linguistic interactions take place in
a wide variety of environments, and among people who have different roles and
relationships to one another. Goffman (1981) refers to these circumstances as
"participation frameworks." His theory of language interaction is that within

such a structure, "All those who happen to be in perceptual range of the event
will have some sort of participation status relative to it" (Goffman, 1981, p. 3).

The classroom is a particular discourse frame in which children must learn to
navigate a variety of exchanges. One important attribute of classroom talk is that many
conversations occur in groups. As Snow and Blum-Kulka (2002) noted, "At school,
children will need to learn the new rules for participating — for example, how to volunteer
to be called on, when spontaneous contributions to whole-class discussions are permitted,
and when and how one may talk to peers" (p. 328). Teachers play a critical role in this
conversation format, and the role they choose can impact children's understanding of the
power structure in the classroom. If the teacher assumes the role of the authority, she will
determine who speaks, for how long, and about what topic. In contrast, teachers like Mrs.
Ellis and Mrs. Young seek to find a more open structure, in which they encourage the
children to determine conversation topics.

Mrs. Young regards the children's remarks as attempts to find common ground,
establish roles and identities for themselves, and achieve competence in social
conversations. "I want kids to be independent learners, and the more I encourage them to
have conversation and discussion among themselves, the more I'm letting that happen.
They're learning about each other and from each other," she said. Encouragement of this
type may strike some readers as a departure from the stereotypical classroom model,
where children are expected to keep quiet unless given express permission by the teacher.
In the conversation about languages that is presented in the introduction to this paper,
Mrs. Young not only allowed the discussion of languages to continue, but also
demonstrated her support for the children's comments through her own participation.

Another socially-driven component of discourse that children must master is
finding ways of connecting their own knowledge to the ongoing conversation in the
classroom. Given the developmental reality that young children do not always have a
well-established sense of what knowledge others possess, one of the challenges they face
in the context of a large social interaction is determining the level of presupposition to
make, as well as how and when to make contributions. The pre-kindergarten children in
my research group often made suppositions about shared knowledge that were not well
grounded; in other words, they assumed that their classmates or teachers knew what they
were referring to, and therefore made no attempts to clarify or define statements. An
example of such a remark is Estie's comment during the ''Pussy Willow" conversation,
when she mentions that she had "three Chineses" during her vacation:

Mrs. Ellis: They are like the buds. One. ..two. ..three .Want to pass it//

Estie: I had three Chineses on my vacation. Chinese are very very very. They have

pussy willows.

Mrs. Ellis: They do? Ok. Urn, Emily, are you doing what you can to stay in your

space and not bother others?

Estie is enrolled in a Chinese language class outside of school; during her
vacation that class had met three times. Her partial statement, "Chinese are very very
very. They have pussy willows," appears to be an attempt to introduce a piece of her own
cultural knowledge about pussy willows in China.

The children's apparently disconnected comments often tested the teachers'
abilities to interpret or intuit the children's communicative intent. Edwards and Westgate
( 1 994) made a similar observation in their own classroom research, commenting.

It is argued that in any classroom, teacher and pupils will treat
much of what is said as an index to more extensive background meanings,
some of which they bring from 'outside' while others have accumulated in
the course of their own interaction. In doing so, they assume that others
will be filling-in from the same stock of relevant background knowledge
(p. 102).

Whenever possible, the teachers would encourage these spontaneous
contributions, because of the great social value they provided to the group. In one
instance in Mrs. Ellis' classroom, Wesley started a lively discussion about sleeping bags
(page 1 13). Although Mrs. Ellis joined the conversation after it had already begun, she
was able to enter the discussion and work it into her morning meeting as a part of the
greeting. When I asked her about her choice to devote so much time in response to a
spontaneous remark from one of the children, she explained that one reason she was
willing to take on the topic at such length was that it had obviously generated great
interest among the children, and it appeared to her from their level of engagement, that all
the students would be able to add to the discussion. Later in our interview, her reflections
returned to that morning meeting, and she commented about Wesley,

I let Wesley go because he's a kid for whom— he loves academics,
but connecting facially with the group was a skill he was still learning, and
so if I could find something that he was excited about, that he realized
other kids— but I knew that, one: he wouldn't give up on the topic, and
two: it would add this other dimension of building him up socially within
the group in a way that doesn't always happen in play.

Mrs. Ellis' sensitivity to Wesley in this instance was a phenomenon that recurred
frequently in the classroom. The teachers made great efforts to understand the
motivations and intentions behind children's remarks, often providing explicit comments
about the ways in which children were making connections with each other and among
the ideas and subjects raised in the discussions. Cazden (2001) observed and recorded
classroom discourse in a variety of settings, and encountered many examples of
children's narratives. She noted that

Teachers are inherently at some disadvantage when trying to
understand young children's stories about their out-of-school experiences.
Some stories... are about widely shared experiences with publicly familiar
scripts... Other stories, more often the episodic ones, are about
idiosyncratic elements of family life... which makes it much harder for the
listening teacher to make connections and clarify relationships from extra-
text knowledge (p. 16).

Cazden identified this challenge as a "pervasive teaching dilemma" (p. 22), in
which teachers struggle to validate a student's meaning while helping the child learn
more public and competent forms of discourse. Cazden' s observations speak to the
cultural challenge teachers face when their own linguistic style, cultural backgrounds,
and experiences do not match those of their students, and consequently they find
themselves without access to a mental schema that would help them interpret children's
narratives. Mrs. Ellis' story about her decision to maintain a topic thread about sleeping
bags, and the social benefits of her choice for Wesley, who had introduced the topic, is

just one example of a situation in which the teacher was able to seize upon an "'at-home"
narrative, and bring it into the classroom in a meaningful way.

Heath's (1983/1996) research into the linguistic differences among the various
populations of children in schools in the Piedmont region of the Carolinas emphasized
the challenge that Cazden described. After identifying two distinct populations
('Trackton,' an African-American working class community, 'Roadville,' a white
working class community), Heath examined the language patterns between parents and
young children in their home environments, and compared those patterns to the styles of
speech used in early childhood classrooms. Her research also included an analysis of the
teachers' own linguistic styles. In her findings, she noted that for the children of these
two communities, "the what, how, and why of patterns of choice they can exercise in
their uses of language prepare them in very different ways for what lies ahead in school
and in work or other institutional settings" (p. 347). For the Roadville children, their
home life and socialization were consistent with the expectations of the classroom, and
"there is a lulling sense of a familiar continuity of past experiences in the new setting of
school" (pp. 347-348). In contrast, the Trackton children grew up with a very different set
of interactional experiences with adults and other members of their community:
The children listen, observe, practice, and finally participate,
getting their encouragement often in unpredictable and uneven doses.
Trackton parents believe that when their children go to school, they will
continue to learn the same way... by watching, listening, and trying. For
the children, however, the school is a sudden flood of discontinuities in the

ways people talk, the values they hold, and the consistency with which the

rewards go to some and not to others (p. 348).

Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young have been explicit in their own sensitivity to the
potential differences in preparation and background that their children may bring to
school. Because this is a private school, the children have all participated in an
admissions process that includes interviews, screenings, meetings with parents, and
substantial documentation of the children's early years. One component of the school's
admissions process is to ensure that each class represents diversity in race, ethnicity,
religion, family background, income, residence, and culture. The teachers review all the
children's admissions files in the spring and summer before the children enter the class,
so they are familiar with the diverse family backgrounds and previous educational
experiences of each of their students. Mrs. Ellis said.

In the first couple of days... I make the assumption that, though

many of them have been to school, we may be slightly different. So, some

of [the planning] is bridging what their memories of their former school

are, with their experience [here].

Mrs. Young noted,

Depending on what type of school they were at, some kids have a

hard time with raising hands, or taking turns, because they come from an

environment where that's not expected. Or, they come from a household

where everybody does sit at the table, and they take turns, and they listen

to each other, they wait for somebody to be done.

The teachers do not see these differences as weaknesses or deficiencies in the
children's competence, but as questions to be answered. As is the case with many
qualified early childhood educators, both Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis are well-versed in
developmental theory. Both of them have several years of classroom experience in
addition to graduate degrees in early childhood education. They have observed and
studied children in this setting as well as in other schools, and they apply their theoretical
and practical knowledge in their observations and interactions with the children. They
have both chosen to work at this school because of its values and its focus on
communication. In contrast to the teachers portrayed in Heath's study in Roadville and
Trackton, Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young are fully aware of their own communication values,
but they are also curious about and respectful of the many communication styles that the
children bring to the classroom. Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young are firm in their belief that
communicative skills can be taught, and that the children can participate in the process,
with the teachers as facilitators.

Previous Research in Classroom Language

Classroom talk has been a source of interest to educators, psychologists, linguists,
and sociologists for decades. Researchers have found rich opportunities for observing,
recording, and analyzing the variety of spoken interactions between and among teachers
and students. Although there is obvious overlap among the investigations cited here, I
have identified three broad categories of investigations and analysis of talk in classrooms,
each of which has some bearing on my own study. One group of studies focuses on the
interactional structure and the sequence of exchange of speaking roles within the group
conversation. A second category of research focuses primarily on sociocultural themes

and issues of power and status within the classroom. The third group of studies focuses
on children's competence in monologue and performance-style oral presentations in the
classroom. Although all of these studies have provided foundational and theoretical
background for my research, I have focused my own analysis, as stated above, on the
direct instruction and pedagogy of classroom conversations.

'Structurally' Focused Research. One category of classroom discourse research is
concerned primarily with the sequences and types of interactions between and among
students and teachers. The investigations in this category emphasize a specific type of
discourse, in which turns at talk are clearly demarcated and generally controlled by the
teacher. Although this form of discourse is not the focus of my research, the emphasis on
turn-taking in these studies of classroom talk is useful in providing a framework for
analyzing the sequence of speakers in the morning meeting conversations that I recorded.

Mehan (1979) investigated the ways in which teachers directed exchanges with
students. In his analysis, Mehan focused on the organization and sequence of lessons. He
noted that "teacher and student behavior is organized into "interactional sequences,'
which perform distinctive functions in specific places in the organization of lessons" (p.
36). Mehan' s classroom observations centered on a recurring type of interaction between
the teacher and a group of students, consisting of an initiation (I) by the teacher, which
could take the form of a statement, query, or directive. This initiation was followed by a
response (R) from a student. The student giving the response was typically selected by
the teacher in an explicit manner, either through naming, directed eye gaze, or gesture.
Finally, the teacher would evaluate (E) the student's response. The evaluation stage might
include an assessment of the accuracy or correctness of the response, elaboration or

clarification, or a further initiation with the purpose of seeking additional remarks from
the respondent or other students. In his analysis, Mehan defined the boundaries of these
"instructional sequences:" "Once an instructional sequence has been initiated, interaction
continues until the symmetry between initiation and reply acts is obtained" (p. 52). This
symmetry could occur immediately (one initiation act, one reply, and one evaluative act),
resulting in a 'three-part teacher- student sequence' (p. 52), or it could involve a series of
initiations and strategies 'until the expected reply does appear" (p. 52).

One of the striking features of the questions posed in Mehan' s research sites was
that the teachers frequently had a specific answer in mind when they initiated the
interactions. The implications of this phenomenon are significant as an indicator of power
within the classroom. If the teacher's role is not only to serve as the facilitator and
conductor of talk (the IRE pattern begins and ends with the teacher's voice), but also as
the authority on the accuracy or form of response for information discussed in the
classroom, such a dynamic creates a clear hierarchy. It also has an impact on students
whose linguistic style differs from that of the teacher, as noted later in this discussion.

In discourse terms, the IRE process is a bounded event; it has a clear format and
sequence, with clearly defined roles for the various participants. As such, it is not the type
of verbal exchange typically found in natural conversation. Because of the relative order
and predictability in role-exchange and the relatively narrow range of possible response
types, many researchers have found IRE -type classroom discourse to be a rich source of
data for analyzing classroom dynamics.

In my own investigation, this type of highly-structured interaction was rare. The
pre-kindergarten teachers had no expectation that their students would wait in silence

until they were called on; nonetheless, as Mrs. Young commented above, they did expect
the children to develop and demonstrate an emerging understanding of the importance of
waiting for a turn at talk. Also, Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis did not always have a
preconceived idea in mind when they raised a topic for discussion; as part of the
community-building focus of the class, the teachers' goal was for the children to share
meaningful and personal remarks with the rest of the group.

Edwards and Westgate (1994) focused their analysis of classroom discourse in
part on the characteristics that distinguish classroom discourse from regular conversation.
They argued that the somewhat artificial discourse structures of the classroom are
acceptable and even necessary in the context of teaching and learning:
The point is not that classroom talk 'should' resemble
conversation, since most of the time for practical purposes it cannot, but
that institutionalized talk (such as talk for instructional purposes) shows a
heightened use of procedures which have their 'base' in ordinary
conversation and are more clearly understood through comparison with it.
(p. 116)

Edwards and Westgate's position is well-taken, especially in the context of the
early childhood classroom in which I conducted my research. These children were
learning how to participate in multi-voiced conversations, which often followed topic
sequences that were not always of their choosing. They needed to learn to wait their
turns, to restrain themselves from speaking out impulsively, and to determine whether
what they wanted to say was relevant in the context of the conversation.

Although Mehan's work was published almost 30 years ago, the IRE model is still
the dominant method of interaction in classrooms, particularly in the upper grades,
suggesting that his findings are still valid. The traditional image still holds in many
schools: a teacher stands at the front of the room and presents a question to the class. She
then calls on one student for a response. After the student responds, the teacher provides
an evaluation or a closure to the exchange, and the sequence continues. In an analysis of
classroom discourse, Macbeth (2003) placed the IRE structure in a historical context and
pointed to developments in classroom discourse analysis that had occurred since the
publication of Mehan's Learning Lessons (1979) more than two decades earlier. Macbeth
defined two categories of studies, the first of which was grounded in the type of discourse
analyzed by Mehan and others. Macbeth classified these as investigations of "naturally
occurring discourse (NOD)" (p. 246): "The interest in NOD is thus an interest in the
social organization of tasks, settings, and identities as they are produced and assembled in
interaction. The sequential analysis of discourse points to social order, meaning, and
structure..." (Macbeth, 2003, p. 252). Macbeth also noted that these studies were an
attempt by researchers to focus on uses of language in ordinary interactions as opposed to
linguistic studies of formal language analysis.

Macbeth' s second group of classroom language studies fit into the realm of
critical discourse analysis (CDA), which he described as an area of social and
ethnographic research that focused on the constructive nature of discourse. Macbeth
noted the highly theoretical nature of CDA, as well as the deeply layered approach of its
practitioners in analyzing their data sets. He addressed the inherent social assumptions

and power structures that go unnoticed by the members of a discourse community (who
he referred to as 'the natives'), and commented on the

...ways in which power and hegemony are concealed by
technologies of consensus, for how they are insinuated into everyday life
but unnoticed. . .The very premise of concealment delivers at once the task
and authorization of formal analysis: to assemble the gaze that can reveal
what the natives do not see, and its formative place in their ordinary
experience" (Macbeth, 2003, p. 249).

It is this level of analysis that provides a means of assessing the inherent
imbalance of power between teacher and students, and also among students who bring
different linguistic styles into the classroom. These differences are particularly striking
when teachers use them as the basis for assessing students' competence in the classroom.
Despite his interest in the hidden social assumptions of power structure within the
classroom, Macbeth did not discount the purpose and necessity of the teacher as
facilitator of information: "Unavoidably... classroom instruction organizes the room with
the assurance that knowledge is already in place, and thus organizes the teaching and
learning as a process of revealing it" (Macbeth, 2003, p. 258). Nonetheless, he argued
that the teacher's role in the interaction "can be done in an indefinite number of ways,
and one of the more delicate organizations has to do with the teacher's third-turn
evaluation" (Macbeth, 2003, p. 259). The "third turn," or evaluation component of the
IRE sequence, is the portion of the interaction where the teacher arguably has the greatest
flexibility in directing the power structure in the classroom. After a student responds, the
teacher has the option of maintaining control of the conversation by moving on to a new

topic, or by providing closure to the exchange with the student. She could also share
control of the conversation in many ways. One option would be to extend the exchange
by engaging the students further by presenting a follow-up question or asking if anyone
has an alternate response. Another possibility might be to pursue a tangential idea
suggested by a student response. Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young frequently chose this last
approach in their own discussions with the pre-kindergarten children. Although the
teachers planned an agenda and chose general topics of discussion for their meetings each
day, they were prepared for new topics to emerge. Their conversations, though
purposeful, could not be defined as structured However, even in the context of a highly
structured discourse framework, classroom conversations include countless examples of
unexpected responses, interruptions, and comments added as asides. Edwards and Mercer
(1987) referred to these remarks as

...'spontaneous contributions' offered by the pupils [that] were by
definition those communications least influenced by teacher control... and
the teacher generally remained in control of the ultimate fate of any such
contributions — of whether they were acted on, taken up and incorporated
into the development of ideas in further classroom discourse, or whether
they were discouraged, disapproved, or ignored (p. 131).
In some cases, such "spontaneous contributions" in classroom discourse are no
more than brief remarks or observations; in other instances, they are substantial pieces of
narrative. Whatever the length and extent of their content, such contributions represent
attempts to make connections among events, content areas, or experiences.

Both of the pre-kindergarten teachers in my research site spoke to this issue,
emphasizing the importance of the children's ability to co-construct the conversations.
Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young not only expected these remarks in their pre-kindergarten
meetings, they welcomed them. Mrs. Ellis, in describing the agenda of her morning
meeting, distinguished between the "business" portion of the meeting (attendance,
weather, greeting) and the more open-ended discussion that usually followed those
agenda items: "For them, the exciting part of the meeting comes after that. And I don't
know if that's just my prejudice... Because I'm looking forward to the conversation."

Mrs. Young gave a specific example of the importance of spontaneous
contributions in her classroom discussions:

There are so many teachable moments through spontaneous
conversation... In pre-K and K, you could try to teach life cycle
backwards and forwards, but if a kid's not interested in what you're doing,
they're never going to learn it... But the day you let that conversation
come up about the butterfly they saw in their backyard that stemmed from
green grass; you know, you're talking about green grass and why it
doesn't stay green in the winter, and they're bringing up butterflies. That's
when they're going to learn about life cycle, 'cause you left it open-ended.
And you leave time for that spontaneous talk, where they're learning from
each other.

The value that Mrs. Young places on children's contributions to the group's
growing knowledge base is grounded in her convictions about the development of a
community of learners. She places great emphasis on reversing the traditional power

structure in the classroom, preferring whenever possible to allow student-directed
learning rather than teacher-directed instruction. She knows that although their comments
are important to establishing themselves as active members of the group, the children also
need to learn how to participate effectively in group communication. Vasconcelos and
Walsh (2001) observed a similar value in Ana's classroom in Lisbon: "For Ana," they
commented, "intellectual life emerges from a caring group life, she works to make the
curriculum emerge from the daily interactions of group life" (p. 504). Just as the teacher
provides direct instruction in areas of curriculum content, she must do the same with
regard to conversational rules and conventions. As Cazden (2001) explained, "The adult
enacts the entire script herself in the beginning, but the child gradually appropriates more
and more of what had been the adult role. The adult so structures the game that the child
can be a successful participant from the beginning" (p. 62).

The concept of turn-taking is the principal connection between the "structural"
studies of classroom discourse in the literature and my own. What students learn about
the verbal and non-verbal signals for gaining the "floor" in a multiparty conversation are
critical skills for competent and successful participation in classroom interactions.
Sociolinguist Barbara Johnstone (2002) explained the importance of turn-taking and the
various moves that speakers can choose in order to get a turn at talk in a conversation:
Getting the conversational floor takes less work when a second
speaker waits until the first speaker has indicated that he or she is finished
talking, via phrase-final intonation or grammar, eye contact or body
movement, or some explicit means for allocating the next turn to someone
else (asking a question, for example). Another way to say this is that there

is a 'preference' in conversation for well-defined boundaries between
turns. If a new speaker wants to interrupt a turn, he or she has to talk
louder, say something like 'excuse me,' or acknowledge in some other
way that this action is 'dispref erred.' Another way in which turns are
relevant to how conversations are structured is that certain types of turns
may call for particular corresponding types of turns to follow them:
questions call for answers, complaints for responses, a greeting for a
return greeting. When conversationalists fail to respond with the expected
turn type, extra work is necessary to 'repair' the problem: if a question
turn is not followed by an answer turn, the question may be asked again,
for example (p. 72).

Erickson (2004) discussed the importance of understanding the implicit
conversational rules in classroom talk. In one observation, he watched a first grader,
Angie, attempting to respond to a teacher's direct question during a group conversation.
Erickson's analysis of Angie's difficulty illustrates the multiple aspects of
communicative competence that young children must achieve in order to be successful
participants in classroom discourse, particularly around getting and keeping a turn at talk.
Erickson described behaviors that make a child's turn vulnerable: hesitation, shrugging,
low volume or voice quality, and pauses (p. 59). He also discussed timing and topical
relevance as key factors in getting the teacher's attention and gaining the ability to
contribute a remark (p. 66). The teacher's role in this interaction began when she
designated Angie as the respondent to her question. When Angie did not provide a
correct response (defined by Erickson as one that was "not only informational ly correct

but socially correct as well" (p. 55)), the teacher continued to demonstrate to the rest of
the group through eye gaze and orientation of her body, that Angie still had the floor, (p.
62).

Erickson focused much of his discussion on the turn-taking sequence in the
discussion. His observations and distinctions of verbal and non-verbal behaviors of both
the children and the teacher are relevant to my own analysis. My data set includes several
examples of children attempting to gain a turn at talk, or of the teachers encouraging the
more reticent students to contribute to the group conversation.

Performance-Based Discourse Studies. The performance nature of
communicative competence in the classroom has been noted and indirectly addressed in
the discussion above. In my research into the literature regarding classroom discourse,
one recurring type of linguistic performance is the "Sharing Time" or "Show and Tell"
narrative style of talk. Although the children in my investigation did not regularly engage
in monologue-style storytelling in the morning meeting, previous studies of this type of
language use have been influential in my analysis because of their emphasis on linguistic
style.

Courtney Cazden, in her influential work Classroom Discourse: The Language of
Teaching and Learning (1988/2001) conducted an investigation into "Sharing Time"
discourse in early childhood classrooms. Among her observations was the premise that
"the basic purpose of school is achieved through communication... Spoken language is an
important part of the identities of all the participants" (p. 2). Competent participation in
school-based discourse, as any other form of discourse, is a learned process. Cazden
argued that

...speech events, including classroom discourse, can only be
accomplished by the collaborative work of two or more persons. In this
sense, school is always a performance that must be constituted through the
participation of a group of actors... the communicative competence of
students, especially in the early school years, develops gradually (p. 40).
Cazden's point underscores the importance of the teacher's ability to understand a
child's attempt to achieve linguistic coherence in her remarks. As the facilitator of
discourse in the room, the teacher has the responsibility of guiding, explaining, and
providing scaffolding for children to learn and practice the skills of social interaction.

Michaels and Cazden (1986) conducted a series of studies of "Sharing Time" in
classrooms in Berkeley, California, and Boston, Massachusetts. They analyzed a variety
of interaction styles, intonation patterns, and linguistic backgrounds in the classrooms,
with a focus on ways these factors impacted the ability of teacher and student to
collaborate with one another. In the discussion of their findings, Michaels and Cazden
reported similar observations to those documented by Heath (1983/1996): "discourse
patterns related to ethnic background affect the quality of teacher/child collaboration in
ways that, cumulatively, deny certain children access to key learning opportunities"
(Michaels & Cazden, 1986, p. 132). The authors distinguished two styles of narrative in
their data. The first type, which they named "topic-centered," was "tightly organized
around a single topic with a high degree of cohesion, and lexically explicit referential,
temporal, and spatial relationships. There was a marked beginning, middle, and end, with
no shifts in time or place" (p. 136). This discourse style was primarily used by the white
children in the classrooms, and was perceived positively by the teachers.

In contrast, the black children in the classroom tended to employ what the
researchers called a '"topic-associating" style of narrative, "consisting of a series of
implicitly associated personal anecdotes, often involving shifts in time, location, and key
characters, with no explicit statement of an overall theme or point" (Michaels & Cazden,
1986, pp 136-137). This narrative style was often viewed negatively by the teachers, who
found the children's stories difficult to follow and lacking in cohesiveness.

To the extent that children get practice clarifying, expanding, and
focusing their discourse to meet a teacher's implicit literate notions about
how information should be organized and lexicalized, collaborative
exchanges. . .may serve to bridge the gap between children's home-based
oral discourse competence and the more literate discourse strategies
valued in school and required in written communication" (p. 138).
In my small research group (22 subjects), the representation of any single ethnic
background was often limited to one or two children. For example, there is only one
African- American child in the class. To classify that child's narrative style by racial
tendencies would be inappropriate and invalid. Nonetheless, the children did demonstrate
many types of speaking styles, which I observed and noted as the conversations ensued.

The "Sharing Time" research studies are relevant to my own research in their
emphasis on the critical role of the teacher in validating children's attempts to
communicate effectively in the classroom. These studies also connect with the previously
cited research on children's peer relationships; Sharing Time as a performance-oriented
form of speech provides children with an opportunity to present information themselves
which may serve as a point of connection with classmates. Given the reality that children

bring a wide variety of narrative styles to their school environments, it is essential that
teachers be prepared to respond carefully to each student's remarks.

II: Design of Study

I concentrated my data collection on the "Morning Meeting" component of the
school day because of its regularity and predictability in the pre-kindergarten schedule,
and also because it is a central element of the teachers' focus on building community. In
determining the parameters for my research, I conducted the investigation as a
microethnography, according to Berg's (2004) definition:

Microethnography focuses on particular incisions at particular points in
the larger setting, group, or institution. Typically, these specific points are
selected because they in some manner represent salient elements in the lives of
participants, and in turn, the life of the larger group or institution (p. 150).
Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, and Shuart-Faris (2005) provided an even more
specific label for the type of research I conducted. They described classroom language
research in the context of microethnography and in the tradition of an ethnography of
communication (p. xv). "Language not only is the object of study in research on
classroom language and literacy events but it is also the means through which the
research occurs" (p. xvi), they noted. These descriptions of research methodology
matched precisely the manner in which I intended to work: by focusing on a brief but
recurring element in the classroom day, I hoped to gather data that would inform my
understanding of children's language use in a more general sense. The morning meeting
is a bounded event in the day, and it involves a distinct form of talk: There is a clear
beginning and end to the morning meeting, and its structure contains a specific sequence
of activities and types of talk. I collected 47 recordings over the course of the year, for a
complete data set that represented more than one recording per week.

Description of Research Setting

I conducted this study in a private elementary school in the Boston suburbs,
serving a population of 267 children beginning in pre-kindergarten and ending at grade 8.
Students at the school come from approximately 30 cities and towns in the greater Boston
area. The school's population is ethnically, socially, economically, and racially diverse. I
focused my research in the pre-K classroom, which serves children between the ages of 4
and 5.

The pre-kindergarten class consists of 22 children, 1 1 boys and 1 1 girls. Their
large classroom features a partial wall that separates the room into two spaces, each of
which features a meeting area (see Figure 1 on next page). The entire classroom is used
by all the children during most of their social time; however, they are divided into half-
groups for academic instruction. Each morning, children enter the classroom for '"tabletop
time," some with adult caregivers, between 7:50 and 8:15 a.m. They find many choices
and materials for activities on the classroom tables.

Parents and caregivers may remain in the room until the teachers ring the
classroom chimes at 8:30 a.m. At that point, children clean up their tables and wait to be
excused to their mats in the classroom meeting areas. These areas are defined by a special
carpeted region on the floor. The curved carpet stripes help the children keep their mats
in the correct spots.

Figure 1 : Classroom Diagram

r«
hav"found

Meeting

Area

Sink

HalSwav

The morning meeting is the first structured activity of the day. It lasts between 1 5
and 30 minutes, depending on the teacher's goals and other factors, such as specialist
schedules and the weather. (The weather is a factor because on most days, the children go
outside directly after morning meeting. If the weather is poor, the teachers accommodate
the lost outside time by extending tabletop time, begin the morning meeting later, and
occasionally extending the morning meeting). Each teacher has a meeting area for her
group. Each morning, therefore, there are two simultaneous meetings comprised of one
teacher, 1 1 students, and often a graduate student teacher. It is not unusual for a visitor to
be present. As the director of the teacher training program, I am often in attendance to
observe the student teacher, but just as often, I or someone else may join the class to

observe individual children or the whole group. During the year that I conducted this
research, I was such a frequent presence in the classroom that the children thought of me
as one of their regular teachers.

Characteristics of Participant Group

There are 22 children in the class, as noted above, 1 1 boys and 1 1 girls. Fourteen
of the children are Caucasian. One child is adopted from China, one is African- American,
one is adopted from Central America, one is biracial Asian-Caucasian, one is from Spain,
one is from India. Four children speak languages other than English (Farsi, Hindi.
Spanish, and French) at home. Several children participate in out-of-school language and
culture classes in Chinese, Spanish, and French. Two children are from single-parent
families. Five are only children. Seven are oldest siblings. Eight are youngest siblings.
Two are middle siblings. The range of ethnicities, family styles, and languages in this
class is representative of the overall school population. The class is divided into two
groups, each of which has a name that was selected by the children. One group is the
Dalmations; the other is the Dragonflies.

Data Gathering Process

On the mornings that I recorded the children's meetings. I went into the classroom
a few minutes before the end of "tabletop time" to greet the children and adults in the
room and to find a seat in the morning meeting area. I alternated between the two
teachers' meeting areas so that over the course of the year I collected approximately the
same number of recordings from each group. For the majority of recordings. I was
present in the room for the entire morning meeting. In addition to the audio recordings

that I collected, I also took notes about the children's and teachers' actions and
statements. Most of these notes were brief reminders to myself about which speaker made
certain statements. I described non-verbal exchanges, as well as events or visual stimuli
that were discussed among the children, side conversations or distractions, and contextual
observations such as the weather, new items in the room, or situations that had happened
previous to the meeting which might impact the children's remarks or behavior. I also
recorded observations about where the teachers' attention was directed during the
discussions. Midway through the year, I began including a diagram of the circle to
identify of where each person was seated in the gathering. On a very few occasions, I was
called away from the classroom for other business. In those situations, I left the recording
device with one of the teachers in the room and retrieved it later in the day.

As a faculty member at the research site, I had extended access to the classroom.
My familiarity with the setting provided a rich context for my investigation, and also
made my presence in the classroom a regular part of the children's day. On the first day
of school, I demonstrated my recording device for the children and answered their
questions about it. The children were fully aware that they were being recorded.
Occasionally, a child would become distracted by the device if it happened to be near his
or her spot on the floor, but I did not observe any changes in the children's speech
behavior that would indicate that the recorder altered or affected their language or their
participation in the group conversation.

Recording and Transcription Process

I recorded the children's meetings in a digital format, using an Apple iPod™
device with an attached microphone. After collecting each recording, I downloaded the
file into my computer's iTunes™ application. This process allowed me to catalog and
organize the sound files, and to extract selections easily, using QuickTime™ digital
media software.

The technical aspects of transcription involved entextualizing the spoken words as
closely as possible. I entered the text into the computer using a digital closed-captioning
application called MAGPIE™, which was developed by the WGBH National Center for
Accessible Media. This application allowed me to attach the audio file I had downloaded
directly to the text transcript. When I had finished transcribing, I could play the file
through MAGPIE. I also exported each transcript into Microsoft Word™ for ease and
flexibility in formatting and extracting selected sections.

I collected a total of 47 recordings over the course of the year, although I did not
intend to use all of them in my analysis. Eliot Mishler, in his writing (1991) about
transcription, and in a presentation to Caroline Heller's research and writing seminar,
observed that researchers have a tendency to gather data sets that are too large for their
investigations, and that a sensible approach is to work with a selected subset of the data
for preliminary analysis. Since I was interested in development in the children's
discourse behavior over time, I chose to transcribe and analyze a small set of 12
recordings that would represent different portions of the year: four from the fall, another
set of four from the middle of the school year, and a final small set from the spring for a

total of twelve recordings. I defined the 'beginning' of the year as the period from the
first day of school until the end of October. This choice was informed partly by the
teachers' practice; they spend the first six to eight weeks of the year establishing routines
and introducing classroom practices. My boundaries for the 'middle' of the year began
on the day school resumed after Thanksgiving break and continued through the end of
March, a period of approximately four months, punctuated by December break and
February vacation. For the "end" of the year, I chose samples recorded from the end of
April vacation until the last day of school. Again, this determination was made in part
because of the teachers' practice; during the final eight weeks of school, the teachers and
students made frequent references to the number of days left in the year and they
reviewed and refined material that they had been learning all year. My choices were also
determined by a desire to represent both teachers' classes equally, so I selected my final
data set by balancing the number of recordings from each group. These 12 transcripts
would form the basis of the analysis, with excerpts from additional recordings included to
add depth and texture to the discussion.

Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Transcription

Researchers working with child language and classroom discourse data have
noted a number of issues in representing spoken language in a written and analyzable
form. The challenges I needed to resolve in light of the goals and emphasis of my study
included establishing a means of capturing and describing a variety of forms of
communication, creating a format that did not prioritize any participant, representing
overlapping speech, and deciding on the level of detail to be represented. For Edwards

and Westgate (1994), there was a philosophical and theoretical basis for choosing
between "the immediate coding of observed behavior as it occurs, and the creation of an
audio- or audio-visual record that can be replayed after the event" (Edwards & Westgate,
1994, p. 60). At the most basic level of data analysis, then, the first decision I made was
the choice to create permanent recordings of the children's meetings.

Once the decision to make recordings had been established, there was no doubt
that I needed to create text transcripts of the audio recordings. As Cameron (2001) stated,
"Without a transcript — a written/graphic representation — talk is impossible to analyze
systematically" (p. 31). She further noted that "transcribing is a way to bring into focus
the characteristics of spoken discourse, which are surprisingly obscure to most people"
(p. 33). "Transcripts are our constructions and making them is one of our central research
practices," said Mishler (1991, p. 277). My transcripts needed to include the spoken
language of the teachers and children, but I also needed to document non-verbal
communication elements such as eye gaze or gestures, as well as information about the
location of children in the room, interruptions or distractions from outside the morning
meeting area, and other relevant data.

I needed to make decisions related to several aspects of the research, and I
consulted several sources about transcription theory and methodology. Bloome, et al.
(2005) commented on the importance of defining what, precisely, about language I
intended to investigate: "Researchers must decide what it is they are studying when they
claim to study classroom language... The boundaries they impose... what they connect
their bit of research to, what frames of reference they use, are all part of a definition of
language" (p. 3). Cameron (2001) noted that "when we speak we use pausing, and.

especially, intonation (pitch and stress) to 'chunk' our talk into units... generally what the
boundaries signal is the structure the speaker wishes to impose on the information s/he is
giving" (p. 35). These comments related to one of the first elements I needed to address
and how I wanted to code and label the segments of language I would investigate in the
formatting of my transcripts: Would I attempt to encode the children's speech in fine
detail, employing the diacritical marks of discourse analysts, indicating changes in
inflection and marking pauses and other elements of speech, or would I simply type the
words that were spoken, relying on conventional punctuation marks to signify full stops
and pauses? How would I represent such aspects of the discourse as overlapping speech,
interruptions, or turn sequences?

Mishler raised these questions and others, noting, "these procedural and
methodological decisions reflect implicit theoretical assumptions..." (Mishler, 1991, p.
261). The assumptions to which Mishler referred, and the work of discourse analysts in
general, typically apply to analysis of speech among competent adults. The data that I
have collected is, quite explicitly, not the conversation of competent adults. Therefore,
many of the behaviors that are notable in adult conversation were either not present or
were only present in immature forms in these morning meetings. As I assembled the
transcripts of the children's meetings, it was critical that I focused on the developmental
level of the children. Their knowledge of when and how to take turns or when and how to
introduce new topics is still emerging; with this reality in mind, it was extremely
important that I include references to the children's verbal contributions and also their
gestures or non-verbal signals so that I could document their progress in gaining the skills
of competent conversation. In my analysis of events and interactions, I was also able to

review the transcripts with the teachers and ask for their assessment of certain exchanges;
in addition, after many morning meetings, I had follow-up conversations with the
teachers about events or comments that had occurred during the lessons. These
contributions were valuable in interpreting possible intentions or referential statements
that the children made.

One of the major issues I needed to address in the transcription process was the
occurrence of overlapping speech. Cameron (2001) pointed out that "a transcript needs to
show this going on, and using standard writing conventions like commas and full stops
may obscure it by making conversation look like a succession of distinct, self-contained
clauses, when it really does not sound like that" (p. 35). This type of speech behavior is
directly related to turn-taking and the recognition of which participant in a conversation
has the "floor." Overlapping speech is a recurring issue in analysis of adult speech, and
in the subtle observations and behaviors required of adults in the process of conversation.
Learning to interpret the cues of timing, topic, and status for turn-taking within a group
conversation can be seen as one of the central elements in communicative competence,
and interpreting the nuances of overlapping speech is an interest for linguists, including
Johnstone (2002):

Speakers may (or may not) start their turns when the previous
speaker's turn could be ending (at the end of a phrase, for example), but
they do not always wait until the previous speaker has in fact stopped
talking. In other words, in most conversations there are frequent occasions
when more than one person is talking at once. Such "overlaps' are not
always perceived as interruptions; often they are not perceived at all,

because they are expected and not disruptive. For some speakers and in

some situations, overlapping speech can be seen as cooperative and can

help build rapport between speakers, (p. 73)

I intended to analyze the ability of children to recognize the effects of their
interjections on the rest of the group. Cazden (2001) commented, "It becomes important
to try to understand when overlapping speech is an interruption and when it expresses
peer solidarity and support" (p. 86). There are, in addition to these distinctions, many
other reasons for overlapping speech, especially among children who have not yet
learned to master their impulses and who are still learning how to participate in a large-
group conversation. I also needed to distinguish overlapping speech from "latched
speech" (Edwards & Westgate, 1994, p. 66), in which one speaker's turn follows
immediately after another's with no pause between turns. Because I was interested in the
dynamics that occurred when children's speech overlapped or followed directly on the
remarks of another, I was certain that I needed a coding scheme for this element of
discourse.

There are a number of means by which a researcher can purposely or
inadvertently present one speaker as the dominant voice. Ochs (1979) noted that in adult-
child interactions, transcripts often tend to represent the adult as the dominant or higher-
ranking participant in the conversation. For example, "whichever speaker is assigned to
the leftmost column has a better than average possibility of being [perceived by the
reader as] an initiator of a sequence of talk" (p. 50) and also, "the first move in an
interactional sequence becomes a point of reference for the remainder of the episode at
hand" (p. 50). Ochs examined the options for physical layout of a transcript, discussing

the various cultural biases inherent in a top-to-bottom format for linear transcripts, or in a
left-to-right format for columnar transcripts.

As I began the transcription process for my own data set, I was pleased to note the
number of occasions where a child, and not the teacher, had created the point of reference
in the conversation. In many situations when a new topic was introduced, it was a child
who brought the topic to the floor, thereby creating a new "point of reference." Although
Ochs' discussion of power structure in transcription provided a necessary caution, the
conversations in my data did not, in my analysis, appear to be dominated by the adults,
and I chose to format my transcripts in a linear format.

A related issue for transcription formatting concerns the amount of information to
include in the documentation. Given the relatively large volume of data that I collected,
there were many possible methods for transcribing and organizing these recordings. As I
continued to gather resources and locate models for transcription protocols, I soon
realized that if I applied all of the methods recommended by the researchers, my
transcripts would be cumbersome to produce and to read. Ochs (1979) advised,
"selectivity, then, is to be encouraged. But selectivity should not be random and implicit.
Rather, the transcriber should be conscious of the filtering process" (p. 44). Gee (1999)
echoed this argument, stating, "ultimately it is the purpose of the analyst that determine
how narrow or broad the transcript must be" (p. 88). Making sure to include entire
sequences of talk to provide context, I focused my analysis on the types of speech acts
and discourse moves I was most interested in investigating, and relied on those choices to
determine my transcription protocol.

My primary interests in this study are the children's conversational behaviors and
emerging competencies in turn-taking, topic management, and overlapping speech. For
the most part, I chose to rely on conventional spelling and punctuation to entextualize the
speakers' words. Although the data present many opportunities to analyze the children's
speech patterns, intonations, articulation, and elocution, I chose to focus primarily on the
meaning in the children's utterances and on the sequence of the conversations. However,
for a small number of recurring speech elements, I applied the conventions in Table 1.

Table 1: Transcription Markers

[ Right- facing brackets identify places where a speaker's turn is being

interrupted or where overlapping speech occurs.
! Left- facing brackets indicate the interruptor/overlapper's speech.

= An equals-sign indicates latched speech; situations when there is no pause

between speakers.
/ A single slash indicates a brief pause.

// More than one slash indicates a longer pause.

(...) An ellipsis inside parentheses indicates a segment of indistinguishable speech.

Fa:vorite A colon in the middle of a word indicates that the speaker extends or elongates

the pronunciation of a word or syllable.
We A ather A caret inserted in a word indicates that the speaker's pitch or tone rises to

place stress on a syllable or word.
[name of town] A bracketed comment indicates a remark that was stricken in order to protect

the speaker's identity.
(laughs) Text in italics indicates non-verbal or non-linguistic communication acts.

Ethical Considerations

Although this research project met all the criteria for exemption from human
subject research protocols, I felt it was very important to inform the school
administration, faculty, and most critically, the families of the children about the study.

I have been extremely fortunate in the support and encouragement my research
has enjoyed throughout my school community. As I prepared to conduct the study, the
head of school wrote a letter to the parents and caregivers of the pre-kindergarten
classroom (see Appendix), commenting on the ways in which this type of research would
contribute to the expertise of our faculty. I also met with the two pre-kindergarten
teachers and discussed the project; they were enthusiastic and shared my curiosity about
the children's language. I sent a consent form and letter home (see Appendix) to all the
families in the classroom; 100% of the families gave permission for their children's
participation in the study. In addition, I received a professional development grant from
my school's technology department, since I was planning to collect my data using a
digital device. This last component of the project entailed my giving a presentation about
the research to my faculty colleagues at the end of the year, an exercise that helped me
focus my analytical procedures.

To protect the subjects' identities, every child and teacher in the study was given
a pseudonym. These names were used in all transcription and in all discussion of the data.
Although the teachers' actual names are used in my citations and acknowledgements, I
have made every effort to prevent a reader from determining which teacher is the leader
of which group. On the few occasions when I participated in the conversation, my
remarks are indicated with my initials, LFG, in the transcripts. In situations where the

data is shared through an audio presentation, the children's real names are unavoidably
included, but any text accompanying the presentation uses the pseudonyms. In addition, I
removed any specific references to names of family members, or details such as birthdays
or towns of residence.

Selection of Discourse Behaviors

My investigation centers on the children's increasing competence when
participating in group conversation. I wanted to gauge the relevance of children's
remarks to the topic at hand or to the ongoing collective knowledge of the group, as well
as their ability to apply linguistic and social skills of group conversation. In my analysis,
therefore, I considered children's competence from two perspectives: structure and
meaning.

The first focus in my analysis centered on behaviors related to community and
membership in a group, and the ways these were taught as part of the classroom
conversation. As I examined the transcripts, I identified the teachers' direction of the
conversations to establish connections among group members, to recognize and
acknowledge children in the group, and to manage turn-taking, interruptions, and
spontaneous remarks. These three teaching goals aligned with three categories of
discourse behaviors: solidarity moves, ratification, and turn-taking.

The second perspective (meaning) is a component of topic management. Because
their sociolinguistic skills are still emerging, young children tend to lack a sophisticated
ability to filter or prioritize the many topics that arise in the course of typical
conversation. Ninio and Snow (1996), in their analysis of pragmatic development, noted
that children's conversational skills are relatively immature in the areas of "maintaining

topic relevance or observing rules of timing and obligations to respond" (p. 146). Their
attention may be drawn to a passing remark or reference, or they may misunderstand an
unfamiliar word or concept. Therefore, it is not unusual in a conversation with young
children to find the topic shifting quickly.

Given this tendency in young children's linguistic behavior, listeners often are not
immediately able to determine the connection or purpose for a child's statement in the
course of a conversation. In my data set, I identified numerous occasions where
children's remarks referred to concepts that had been briefly mentioned and that were not
part of the main topic stream. Although these remarks were not entirely random, they had
the effect of re-directing the topic flow of a conversation. I found that the linguistic
concept of cohesion served as a unifying theme for much of my analysis of topic flow.
Gee (1999) provided a clear and concise definition of this concept:

Speakers and writers have to do more than connect clauses within
sentences. They must also connect sentences across whole texts. The
grammatical devices we use to create such connections are called cohesive
devices. They signal to the hearer the connections between sentences of a
text and are part of what makes a text sound like it 'hangs together.' (p.
159)

In competent conversation, cohesive devices take the form of transitional
statements, such as 'speaking of...' or 'that reminds me of...' and similar phrases.
Typically, 4-and 5-year old children lack the skill of using these devices. Ninio and Snow
(1996) found that "explicit marking of cross-utterance relations ... is extremely rare in
the speech of 6-year-olds" and that even 12-year olds had not reached maturity in this

aspect of conversation (p. 155). As a result, children's attempts at cohesive linking are
often abrupt. As I reviewed the transcripts, I noted the occurrence of what I refer to as
'naive cohesive attempts;' statements that referred to concepts that were not directly
related to the topic at hand. I was interested in tracking the teachers' responses to these
naive cohesive attempts; that is, whether they resulted in a topic shift in the conversation
or were ignored or only briefly acknowledged by the teacher.

Solidarity: The "Me-Too" Gesture. In the context of this investigation, solidarity
relates to the social dynamics of conversation and the idea that individuals establish
common knowledge and build relationships and connections with each other through
language: "Language use is really a form of joint action. A joint action is one that is
carried out by an ensemble of people acting in coordination with each other" (Clark,
1996, p. 3). One recurring solidarity element that I tracked was the use of a non-verbal
signal to indicate agreement or shared knowledge and experiences. This gesture, known
throughout the school as the "me too" signal, is a hand motion that was taught on the first
day of school and reinforced all year. Other solidarity moves include comments the
children or teachers made to express empathy, to relate a similar experience to one
described by another member of the group, or to build on an idea suggested by someone
else.

The teachers in the study continually emphasized the importance of the "me-too"
gesture as a means of building community; the message conveyed by the "me too" is one
of agreement or shared knowledge. This non-verbal form of communication provides an
opportunity for many participants to share in the discourse without interrupting the

speaker. At the beginning of the year, the signal was taught in both groups, then
reinforced and encouraged throughout the rest of the year.

Mrs. Young is passionate about the importance of the "me-too" gesture. It is one
of the first communication elements she teaches her students at the beginning of each
year. "It sets the tone that 'I can share and not be interrupted,' or "I feel safe to share,
because I know that I can make a connection with other people, ' she said, adding,
When you have a child getting used to an environment, and they're
up there, and putting themselves out there, and sharing something, to have
a friend shouting 'Me too! Me too!' can have a good effect, or it can have
a negative effect, where the kid shuts down because he got interrupted and
it's stolen his thunder and he doesn't want to do it. And when you take the
time to teach that 'me-too,' it gives that child the empowerment to say
'hey, I want to make a connection here,' but it also empowers the child
that's speaking to be able to keep going. So I would say that's really
important to me.

Mrs. Ellis' group also learned the "me-too" gesture at the beginning of the school
year. "It's important if you're going to listen to each other," she said. In Mrs. Ellis'
group, direct instruction of non-verbal signals is presented gradually: "I usually wait for
opportunities that naturally arise in the group, and use those as ways to teach."

Ratification. Ratification moves are those speech acts or nonverbal
communication acts that demonstrate acceptance and authorization for others to
participate in a discourse event. Goffman (1981) placed these dynamics in what he refers
to as a participation framework, which he defined differently from Bloome. et al. (2005):

"All those who happen to be in perceptual range of the event will have some sort of
participation status relative to it" (p. 3). Some of these individuals are ratified
participants, and others (such as eavesdroppers or those who inadvertently overhear a
conversation) are non-ratified participants. In the course of my observations in the pre-
kindergarten, it became clear that the children did not always recognize their own role in
the participation framework.

In the morning meeting and in other group time on the rug, the teachers' goal was
for the children to be quiet, engaged participants. Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young described
and demonstrated what being "ready" for meeting looked like: the children would sit on
their mats with their legs crossed, their eyes on the teacher or the speaker, and their
voices turned off unless it was their turn to speak.

On many occasions, children's attention would shift away from the group
conversation if they were not either speaking or being directly addressed. One of the
more difficult roles for these young children to understand was that of Goffman's
"ratified listener;" the group member who is present and attentive but who does not
speak. The children's impulsive nature and their enthusiasm for the topics addressed in
morning meeting made it extremely difficult for them to suppress their thoughts or to
wait for their turn to speak.

The teachers employed a variety of strategies to gain the entire group's attention
and re-direct the children whose focus had wandered. Ratification, therefore, became an
increasingly important element for analysis.

Turn-Taking and Topic Shifting. The final aspect of conversation in this analysis,
turn-taking, is the process by which various speakers make moves, either verbally or non-

verbally, to take for themselves or grant to others the opportunity to contribute to the
discourse. For the children in this classroom, the work of monitoring themselves and
controlling their impulses was compounded by the limitations of their still-emerging
linguistic competence. One challenge they faced was determining when and how to claim
a turn to speak in a group conversation. This determination depends on a number of
factors, many of which are specific to a particular discourse community, or in
ethnographic terms, a "participation structure" (Bloome, et al., 2005, p. 28).

In such a context, turn-taking rules are "shared expectations among participants
regarding the patterns of turn-taking protocols for a particular type of situation or event"
(Bloome, et al., 2005, p. 28). In some situations in the morning meeting, the teachers
systematically granted turns at speech around the circle, providing the clear message that
each child" s turn would come in sequence. Sometimes this procedure was described
explicitly, and the teachers would name the children in order before proceeding with the
turns. As the children became more accustomed to this practice, the teachers occasionally
relied on eye gaze alone as a signaling gesture. In other situations, the teachers instructed
the children to raise their hands in order to claim a turn. Despite these efforts and the
amount of practice and repeated instruction provided, turn-taking protocols were not
always so well-defined, and children needed to use cues from the teacher, including eye
gaze or gestures, as well as an understanding of the topic at hand, in order to make
appropriate attempts for a turn.

Interruptions were frequent in the morning meetings. Such behavior is common in
any naturally occurring discourse events among adults as well as children, but certain
types of interruptions may demonstrate naive or incompetent participation is

interruption; as discussed above, some interruptions can be classified as solidarity moves
while others are either inadvertent communication errors or insensitive, impulsive, ego-
centric utterances made without regard for the other members of the group. It is these
latter types that the teachers addressed with the children.

Within the category of turn-taking and interruptions is overlapping speech, which
can be either an interruption or a sign of solidarity. I encountered numerous examples of
overlapping speech in the classroom, particularly when an exciting topic presented itself
and several children wanted to respond at the same time. Cazden (2001) observed this
behavior, and recognized that its impact on the group was dependent on the situation: "To
monitor speaking rights in this less procedural and more substantive sense, we have to
look beyond the sequence of speakers to the sequence of ideas" (p. 87), she advised.
When children's voices joined to share ideas, their behavior had a positive tone within
the group. However, there were other moments when multiple voices competed, rather
than sounding choral. Cazden (2001) commented, '"It becomes important to try to
understand when overlapping speech is an interruption and when it expresses peer
solidarity and support" (p. 86).

One of the teacher's responsibilities in such circumstances is to facilitate the
conversation and monitor interruptions to make sure that the more dominant voices do
not overwhelm the less confident members of the circle. Both teachers commented on
this component of their work, describing the children who had the potential to dominate
the conversation, and the ones who needed encouragement and support in order to have
their voices heard in the group. For both Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young, this level of
awareness and active intervention is a necessary element in building a true community.

According to their teaching philosophy, each child in the class had both the right and the
obligation not only to have a voice, but to hear the voices of the others. Interruptions of
some children were taken more seriously than interruptions of others, as the transcripts
throughout this document demonstrate. The children who interrupted frequently, or
whose remarks were not related to the topic at hand, were typically addressed with a
firmer tone than the children who rarely contributed, or whose comments served to
enhance the conversation. This practice is a critical element of conversation with young
children. Ninio and Snow observed that "adults tend to protect children's turns, but in
peer-interaction situations children must learn to hold the floor long enough to finish their
own turns" (p. 149); Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young's emphasis on turn-taking represents an
important part of scaffolding and community building as the children learned to negotiate
their turns in group conversations.

Interruptions and turn-taking can be interpreted as elements of the power structure
within a classroom, and the children with more dominant voices or more sophisticated
communicative skills can assert themselves either positively or negatively. Some of the
more boisterous children in this class would not be described as aggressive or
domineering, yet their frequent and quick responses often prevented others from
participating. Other children's interruptions had a more negative impact, particularly in
situations where they vehemently disagreed with another child or attempted to take over a
classmate's turn to provide an answer first. In Erickson's (2004) observation of Angie
and her attempts to gain the teacher's attention, he described the behavior of Angie' s
classmates, who were also vying for a turn to speak. He labeled one group the "turn
sharks;" these were the children who would "watch for damage in other speakers'

turns... taking the turn away from a speaker who had faltered or committed some error in
appropriateness" (p. 55). In Erickson's analysis, the turn sharks' behavior demonstrated
their understanding (albeit in an overly assertive manner) of the rules of conversational
turn-taking and turn-management. In such cases, Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis acted more
vigilantly, stopping the interruptor and re-directing the turn sequence to allow the initial
speaker to finish a turn. For some of the more habitually spontaneous speakers, this was a
lesson that needed to be repeated often.

In this classroom, the teachers were aware of and sensitive to the children's
varying levels of confidence, eagerness, or willingness to speak, and they worked
patiently with their students to achieve their goals of community and linguistic
competence. In other, less attentive classrooms, children who do not assert themselves
verbally may be at risk of being perceived negatively by their teachers. Kim (2002)
commented that different cultures value talk to differing degrees, and that "the amount of
talk and the degree of quietness endorsed by a culture may have an overpowering impact
on the communication motivation of most people in that culture" (p. 34). Given this
variation, it is critical for teachers to be aware of the cultural tendencies toward language
that their students bring to the classroom, especially since Kim found that "teachers tend
to have lower expectations of communication-apprehensive students, which lead to lower
achievement" (p. 35). The teacher's need to recognize these differences is important as a
component of building a sense of community and making each student feel validated as a
member of the group. Of particular relevance is the recognition that children from
different cultures or those from non-mainstream linguistic traditions may have been

provided with models or values about assertiveness that make them less likely to initiate
conversation or offer unsolicited comments.

Kim (2002) commented on the phenomenon that "in the United States, assertive
behaviors are perceived as more competent and attractive than unassertive behaviors" (p.
46). She went on to note that "assertive interpersonal skills are a basic necessity for
effective functioning in many aspects of life in the United States. The nonassertive
pattern common among ethnic minorities has been judged by some to be psychologically
dysfunctional and has become a target for intervention" (2002, p. 52). Kim's
multicultural perspective on language use is significant with respect to the expectations
and assumptions that teachers have for competent linguistic behavior, and bears upon the
children's future success in American society.

Another challenge that the children presented to their teachers in the course of
turn-taking was the issue of topic flow. Often, children's responses or spontaneous
remarks had the potential of shifting the discussion away from the topic at hand. Mrs.
Ellis and Mrs. Young faced frequent decisions about whether or not to accept and
incorporate topics raised by the children in each meeting I recorded. In my coding of the
transcripts, I chose to label these exchanges "uptakes," a term introduced in the work of
Ny strand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, and Long (2003). These researchers described uptake as
"occurring when one conversant, for example, a teacher, asks someone else, for example,
a student, about something the other person said previously" (p. 145). My adaptation of
Ny strand, et al.'s definition focuses on the remarks of students as well as the teachers,
and is connected closely with cohesiveness. Uptake events in my analysis are defined as
occurring when one member of the group asks a question or makes a comment that a)

follows on something stated or referred to by the teacher or another student, and b) when
that remark has the result of changing the topic being addressed by the group for at least
one turn exchange. One example of such an uptake event occurred in the conversation on
March 20 (transcribed on page 1 13), when Emily introduced the notion of the first day of
spring, effectively changing the topic from a discussion of sleeping bags to a
conversation about seasons.

III: Results

The recordings that I collected provided man} examples of the children's gradual
development of communicative competence in the three areas of discourse that I had
identified for analysis. The teachers' attention to, and direct instruction in, these
discourse behaviors, were evident throughout the year.

Solidarity

As noted above, the "me too" gesture was one of the first and arguably most
strongly emphasized components in the children's repertoire of commumcation skills. On
the first day of school, Mrs. Young found an opportunity to provide direct instruction in
this non-verbal indicator:
Flat Tires

(September 8: First Day of School)

Nyla: My mom//we got in the car but then the wheel was flat.
Mrs. Young: I know, that's what your mom told me that happened this morning.
Nicky: My mom had a flat tire once.
Trip: My mom did too.

Mrs. Young: Oh! My goodness/ and I'm so glad that Nicky and Trip said that to
Nyla, because now I can teach you another silent symbol. I just want to teach you
one quick thing. Another way/ Nyla was talking, but you want to say, I did that
too, 'or 'that happened to me, too/' If you want to say that, you can say that without
even using your words, so you don't interrupt a friend. Can everybody take their
thumb, put it up, put all your other fingers down, and then bring your pinky up. So
all fingers are down, except for your pink}' and your thumb. Everybody try that?

Trip: I have something to share!

Mrs. Young: Then you need to raise your hand, but right now I'm just giving this

symbol, and I know that Emmett has something to share too, but he is practicing

first, so can you practice too?

Nate: I know what that is; it's the signal to/

Trip: I can't do it!

Mrs. Young: You're doing it already, you were doing it. There you go, So, if you

want to say [

Trip: [Is that like this? [Yup]

Mrs. Young: Oh/ put your thumb out and put this finger down. There you go, you

did it. Now, when you have your hands like this, (more interruptions) that's right,

like this, Trip. And we'll learn that after. But this one, so Nicky, you want to tell

Nyla that happened to you, too, right? So you could do this to Nyla, so everybody

move your arm like this, and that lets that person know, without having to use your

voice or your words, you can infer from that, 'hey, I did that too!' So if you've ever

had a flat tire in your car, put your hand up like this, and give Nyla a 'me, too."

And now Nyla knows that that's happened to Trip, and it's happened to Diana, and

it's happened to Nicky, and it's happened to me. OK, and we'll practice that a lot.

In this exchange, Mrs. Young's remarks served two instructional purposes. Her
primary goal was related to establishing community, partly by encouraging the children
to identify common interests and experiences within the group. Therefore, she took up
Nyla's initial remark about the flat tire, and responded enthusiastically when several
other children called out about their own experiences with flat tires. She explained in

great detail the importance of not having to '"use your voice or your words," to avoid
interrupting a friend.

Shared experiences like these, Mrs. Young knew, are a means of helping the
children find common ground and building connections. However, in this first meeting,
she also needed to teach them the specific hand and finger positions in addition to
explaining the purpose of the gesture. Over the course of the first two months of my data
collection, the "me-too" was reinforced and encouraged by the teachers in both groups,
with the expectation that the children would begin to use the gesture on their own without
being instructed to do so by the teachers. By the end of October, the children were
beginning to demonstrate greater familiarity with the gesture:

Snow

October 24

Emily: Snow is my fa:vorite kind of we A ather!

Mrs. Ellis: (laughs)

Choral: Me too! Me too!

Mrs. Ellis: You know what? We don't need to shout; we have a signal.

Neal: You know what? My favorite season is fall, because that's when I have my

favorite sport.

Mrs. Ellis' reminder in this exchange was very brief. As she spoke, she
demonstrated the signal. Several children picked up on her cue immediately and copied
it. Exchanges of this type occurred through the winter and spring, with children excitedly
responding to their classmates' comments, and the teachers reminding them about the
signal. By March, all the children knew and produced the gesture with the briefest of

reminders, and it was evident that they knew it by name without the teacher
demonstrating the move:

Black-Capped Chickadees

March 20

Mrs. Ellis: We need to find a bird where the call is the same as the name. Emily,

what are you thinking of?

Emily: A black-capped chickadee. It goes 'chicka dee dee dee dee, chick a dee dee

dee dee.

Voices: (Talking over Emily)

Mrs. Ellis: You can give her a 'me too' if that's also what you were thinking of.

Ellie: I was/ I just couldn't think of it.

Mrs. Ellis: Just give her the 'me too.' (She demonstrates, and many children give the

gesture). All right. So today, we're going to do 'Jay, Jay' as we greet each other. So

we're going to start out with 'Jay, Jay, Walter." (Demonstrates holding the bird and

passing it to Walter, who is next to her). And you can pass that to Emily.

Mrs. Ellis' assumption that the children would know what to do when she said,
"You can give her a 'me too,' " is an indication of how thoroughly the gesture had
become integrated into the children's communication patterns within the group. A
number of children immediately gave the gesture, looking at Emily to be sure that she
saw them sharing their agreement with her response.

By the last week of school, the children were initiating the signal and using it
appropriately in their meetings:

Sleeping Beauty

June 7

Mrs. Ellis: (leads the group in a favorite song) All right. Do you remember that one?

Let's sing it again, now that you remember. OK. How's it start?

Choral: (the whole group sings the song).

Mrs. Ellis: All right. (Starts a new song about Sleeping Beauty).

Emily: 1 know that one too! It's Sleeping Beauty.]

Olivia: [(does the signal). Me too.

El lie: That's kind of like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, because she pricks her

finger and Snow White eats a poison apple, but they fall asleep.

Stephen: I love it when she falls asleep.

Mrs. Ellis: (continues the song). Ready, on your horses!

In this brief exchange, the children's comments and gestures supported the
ongoing business of the meeting. Olivia's "me too" gesture was recognized, and she did
not interrupt Emily's remark; instead, she was able to demonstrate her connection to the
conversation in silent solidarity as Emily, Ellie, and Stephen each shared a comment that
was sanctioned by the teacher's gaze.

Solidarity and community building took many forms in the classroom. The
teachers organized group activities and shared experiences to give the children multiple
ways of connecting with each other. Both teachers used chants, clapping patterns, and
games to practice group participation. Over the course of the year, certain songs and
routines became so familiar that the children could lead them, and the teachers
encouraged them to do so. However, not all the children wanted to be led, and their

behavior sometimes indicated a desire for independence, even at the cost of group
harmony. At the beginning of May, Mrs. Ellis' group struggled to stay in unison on a
greeting song. Mrs. Ellis decided to use the situation as a teachable moment:

Finish All Together

May 10

Mrs. Ellis: All right. What's the point of that song?
Ellie: To finish all together.
Mrs. Ellis: To finish all together/

Ellie: It's not the point to make it a race. Because some people are doing it really
faster, so they can get finished first.

Mrs. Ellis: OK, you're right, it's not a race. It's a song that we share together. // So,
we should start and finish together, right? And the other point is, where do your
hands end up?
Choral: In your lap.

Mrs. Ellis: In your lap! So then you're ready for morning meeting. All right, because
your hands are on your own body, and they're quietly in your lap. All right. Let's
try that again, and this time, we're going to start/ and finish all together. And then
we'll be ready for morning meeting. And I have an activity, a game, that I'd like to
play. So let's do a good job on this, so this will be the last time we need to practice.
Walter?
Walter: Did you notice I have a Band-Aid?

Mrs. Ellis: I did notice that while you were using the modeling clay. But I didn't

have a chance to talk about it. That would be a great thing to talk about during

snack. Press that "Save" button. There we go. All right. OK.

Michael: Can I start?

Mrs. Ellis: Michael, are you asking if you can start it? All right, why don't you start

it?

Michael: One, two, three/

Choral: (the group sings the song)]

Olivia: [(shouts) Emily, you're not supposed to be doing it that way!

Mrs. Ellis: All right. Now let's/ Who can remind me the two things that we talked

about that song being about? Olivia, what's one of them?

Olivia: Urn. Emily was doing it super fast.

Mrs. Ellis: Which means that/ what was she forgetting?

Olivia: To wait for/ to do it all together.]

Mrs. Ellis: [all together, because it's not//

Olivia: A race.

Mrs. Ellis: A race. The point of it is to do it all together. And the second point of

doing it is, where do your hands end up?

Choral: In your lap.

Mrs. Ellis: And that's one of the things you need to do to get ready for morning

meeting. OK, let's try it one more time.

Anita: Can I start?

Mrs. Ellis: Yes you can, Anita.

Anita: One, two,

Mrs. Ellis: Wait, maybe give the first direction for where they should put their
hands, and that might help people. All right, everyone feel like they're ready to do
it all together? Excellent. Wait for Anita.
Anita: One, two, three
Choral: (they sing the song again).
El lie: But Emily did it too fast and she//

Mrs. Ellis: OK. We've tried it three times. And this looks like something that we
could practice, and then eventually, the whole group would be able to do it
together. And that would be a good thing. All right, we've already sent down the
attendance slip and I was s:o happy to write on it// Emily, this is not a time to settle
this, and Ellie, we're going to drop this. OK? So, what did I write on the attendance
slip?

This meeting, occurring so close to the end of the year as it did, demonstrates the
level of expectation that Mrs. Ellis had for her students in their group behavior. The
teachers often used songs to start the meetings; this one in particular, as the children all
knew, ended with their hands in their laps, a signal that they were settled and ready for
the meeting. The practice of singing a song together was a strategy for building solidarity
within the group, and Emily's effort to sing at her own speed was recognized as
oppositional by the children and the teacher. Mrs. Ellis' decision to repeat the song three
times is an indication of how much she wanted to emphasize the goal of unity in the
group.

Just as Mrs. Ellis was preparing the group to make a second attempt at the song,
Walter raised his hand and called her attention to the Band- Aid on his finger. This move
is an example of a naive cohesive attempt, as described above. Mrs. Ellis had exaggerated

the hand gesture at the end of the song to emphasize her point about children's hands
ending up in their laps when they finished singing. Her comments and her gestures
reminded Walter of his finger injury; he began looking carefully at his finger while the
teacher was talking, then raised his hand. In this situation, Mrs. Ellis did not allow the
conversation about Band- Aids to go beyond a single turn sequence, and she immediately
returned to the goal of singing the song.

Embedded in the teachers' goals for community building was a value on
responsibility to the group. The children were taught and reminded frequently to take care
of the classroom, to keep themselves safe, and to take care of their friends. As they
approached the end of the year, Mrs. Ellis introduced a formal structure for these
responsibilities. She expressed her concern that the children had not been listening to
each other and following the classroom rules, so she decided to assign "buddies" who
would help remind each other of the expectations:

Buddies

May 10

Mrs. Ellis: Now one thing we need to figure out is, let's say your buddy isn't doing/

isn't following the directions. What are some of the ways that we could remind

them of what the directions are? Remember, you're bu:ddies. So what tone of voice

do you want to use with a buddy? Russell?

Russell: We don't/ and whenever you're mad, don't even think about being mean.

Mrs. Ellis: You would not ever want to do anything that would hurt them.

Remember that you're buddies, so what Russell reminded us of, is that we want to

use a pleasant voice. All right. Olivia, what's your idea about how you might

remind your buddy?

Olivia: If somebody is having trouble, do not use your body. Or bite them. Cause

they might bite you.

Mrs. Ellis: So you don't want to bite them, 'cause they might bite you back? But

would you remind somebody to do/ does your mother remind you of what to do by

biting you? No! So we wouldn't do that either.

Olivia: Cause once Russell said he would bite me.

Mrs. Ellis: Oh! That's great. I'm so glad you brought up/ you also don't want to

threaten: 'If you don't do this, then I'm going to do that.' That is a threat. When you

find yourself saying, for instance, 'if you don't get your backpack out of your

cubby, I'm going to tell the teacher.' You are threatening the other person. What

might be a way to get that person to get the backpack out of their cubby and bring

it to the rug? Anita?

Anita: Say, 'please can you bring it to the rug?'

Mrs. Ellis: You can say 'please bring it to the rug.' What if they've forgotten? Estie?

Estie: Um, you can say, um, 'bring your backpack on the rug.'

Mrs. Ellis: OK, you can remind them of what the direction is. OK. And Ellie?

Eilie: Could you please bring the backpack to the rug.

Mrs. Ellis: Yeah. You could. Or, sometimes/ I'm going to give a suggestion because

I want us to do this activity and work with our buddies. Sometimes what works is if

you say, "Let's get your backpack.' And then the idea is/ you and your buddy

would go and get the backpack together. And that's a lot of fun, is to do things

together. All right.

Neal: Because working together makes a really big job not so small at all.

Mrs. Ellis: Not so big at all. Right? Yeah, it makes it feel smaller, doesn't it? That's a

great point, Neal, is that working together makes jobs feel smaller. All right. Um,

Emily, Ei lie, and Olivia, and then let's do the activity so that we can have a chance

to work with our buddies.

Emily: OK, I have one that might be nice to say to your partner if your partner

forgot an instruction, we could say, um, 'the instructions were to bring your

backpack to the rug, so let's get your backpack.'

Mrs. Ellis: Ah! That says it all, doesn't it? It gives the reminder, but it also says that

you're willing to help them. That's great. OK. Could you put your shoes on, please?

Ellie?

Ellie: It's kind of cool how me and Estie are buddies for a reason 'cause we both

have the same shoes!

Mrs. Ellis: You know what? I didn't even think of that, but you talked about that

yesterday, didn't you, that you both have the same shoes.

Estie: And we are also friends.

Mrs. Ellis: That's right. I tried to find people that were friends. Now, you (to Olivia)

had something you wanted to say. So why don't you hop on your mat and/

Olivia: i forgot.

Mrs. Ellis: OK, you waited too long. OK, we're going to, with our buddies, play a

game. And some of you have already started playing this a bit. The first thing you're

going to do is count the number of digi blocks you have.

This discussion is a remarkable example of direct instruction in group
conversation. Mrs. Ellis was detailed and explicit in her discussion with the children, but

she did not lecture them; rather, she expected the children to provide the details of each
element of the plan. She addressed tone of voice first, gathering responses from the
children and then re-phrasing their answers: "We want to use a pleasant tone of voice."
She then re-directed Olivia's comments about biting, turning to the notion of threatening.
She defined the term, gave an example, and asked for an alternative strategy. Ellie's
excitement about being paired with Estie added to the discussion. Her observation that
she and Estie had the same shoes could be classified as a naive cohesive attempt, since it
was not directly related to the discussion about reminding each other about class rules. In
this case, Mrs. Ellis eagerly incorporated the topic into her discussion, and framed Ellie's
statement in a way that allowed the class to reflect on importance of friendship and
connection within the group.

Ratification

The children's gradual recognition that they had a responsibility to the group
occurred over weeks and months, to the point that by the end of the year, most students
were able to attend to the business of morning meeting for the duration of the class. There
are numerous examples in the data set where the teacher addressed one or more children
to tell them explicitly what their was job in the group discussion. For these children, the
clarification of what was expected of them when they were not speaking or being directly
addressed was a significant step in gaining communicative competence.

The morning meeting procedure in this pre-kindergarten class always included the
same components, although these might take different forms from day to day. There was
always a greeting to begin, followed by attendance, the reading of the daily schedule and
the reading of the morning message. The formal meeting ended with a group activity. The

children had learned the structure of the meeting by the end of October, but some
elements of the class terminology had not become completely internalized. In particular,
the names given to various components of the day occasionally generated confusion or a
reaction from the children.

The following exchange, which took place in late October, illustrates the early
stage of an evolution in terminology that occurred gradually. Reading the daily schedule
was a highlight of the morning meeting, and it was a coveted job. The schedule consisted
of a set of laminated picture cards that the teachers had drawn and labeled to represent
each portion of the day. These cards were hung in a horizontal row across a strip of cork
board at the front of the meeting space. The 'schedule reader' came to the front of the
space and used a pointer to indicate each card, calling out the name of the activity. Over
time, the process became ritualized, so that by the end of the year all of the children used
identical lexicon and even similar intonation as they named each activity. In the fall,
however, some of the children had not memorized all the activity names, and relied on
memories from previous experiences in day care or preschool for descriptors of daily
events, such as "outside time" or "recess" or "circle time." The teachers did not have a
strong preference for one term over the other, but the children gradually adopted a single
set of labels for their schedule, and they became adamant about the correct use of these
terms:

That's Not Recess!

October 24

Mrs. Ellis: Alright! Excellent. Now Wesley, you are our schedule reader. So/ Thank

you, Emily.

100

LFG: Walter/ Walter please keep your hands on your own body.
Mrs. Ellis: Oooh, hold on Wesley. We all ready? Put your finger on your nose if
you're ready to hear the schedule. //Hold o A n! I don't see fingers on noses. Are you
ready? To listen to the schedule? Thumbs up, thank you.

Wesley: [Reads schedule] Table top activities, morning meeting, But I thought it
was closing meeting! [Mrs. Ellis: Oh, no!] Recess, snack time, choice time
Walter: That's not recess!

Mrs. Ellis: What did I say about talking while the person is giving/ it's really hard to
read the schedule if people are calling out to you.

Wesley: closing meeting, then/ I mean, reading, then closing meeting and
dismissal.

Mrs. Ellis: All right. Thank you, Wesley, very much. Now, one question: Is recess
and outside the same thing? [yeah] Yeah. Recess and outside. It's just like, bye-bye,
dismissal, going home and going to lunch we all decided was all the same thing.
It's up to the schedule reader to decide which of those words they want to use. And
if you make/if you have other words that you would like to use, when you read the
schedule, you can use those words. All right? But Wesley is absolutely right in
calling it outside. All right, just as Walter is absolutely right in calling it recess
when he was reading it.

Mrs. Ellis responded immediately, though briefly, when Walter interrupted
Wesley's reading of the schedule. Her comment is an example of explicit and direct
instruction in conversational rules; she pointed out Walter's behavior (''talking while the
person is giving...") and explained why this behavior was not helpful. Once Wesley had
finished reading the schedule, she returned to the issue, this time confronting the meaning

101

rather than the effect of Walter's interjection: "Is recess and outside the same thing?" she
asked. In her explanation, she was able to acknowledge the accuracy of Walter's remark,
as well as that of Wesley's remark. Both boys' contributions received credit, and their
membership and knowledge within the group were confirmed.

Not all the children were as assertive as Walter in making their presence known in
the group, and the teachers made efforts to encourage the more reticent students to
participate. Mrs. Ellis provided a demonstration of the importance of this awareness in
her encouragement of Olivia, who, compared to her classmates, was relatively
inexperienced in group conversation, even into the middle of the year. When it came to
her turn in the sleeping bag conversation in March, Olivia struggled to provide a
competent response:

The Tent

March 20

Mrs. Ellis: OK, Olivia.

Olivia: Urn// My mom got a tent. A tent for camping. And urn///

Mrs. Ellis: (aside to another child) We're listening to Olivia.

Mrs. Ellis: What about the tent and camping, Olivia?

Olivia: (silence)

Mrs. Ellis: Do you think your mom's going to plan some camping trips for you?

Olivia: (nods)

Mrs. Ellis: OK. That will be fun.

102

Mrs. Ellis gently prompted Olivia twice in order to elicit a response. During
Olivia's turn, Mrs. Ellis refused another child's attempt to take the floor, much as in the
scenario of Angie and the 'turn sharks' in her first grade classroom described by Erickson
(2004). This brief exchange with Mrs. Ellis provided Olivia an opportunity to share
something about herself, which she might have not gained without the guidance of the
teacher. Mrs. Ellis emphasized the importance of knowing each child in her class, and
responding individually to their needs: "That's part of the community building, is getting
to know each child individually, so I know how to use that to keep them functioning as a
member of the group." Both teachers demonstrated this knowledge often, tempering their
remarks to adapt to the needs of a specific child. In Mrs. Ellis' group, Olivia and Walter
needed frequent reminders about keeping their bodies still; she was more explicit with
them than with other children, such as Ellie, who could be re-directed with a brief
reminder after she had interrupted Emily in the discussion about black-capped
chickadees.

A frequent occurrence at the beginning of the year was the tendency for some
children, when not being directly addressed by the teacher, to turn their bodies or their
gaze away from the speaker and find some other focus for their attention. In these
situations, the teachers emphasized the value of shared attention in a group conversation.

A second aspect of ratification in this analysis relates to the children's sense of
membership within the group. The teachers wanted to be sure that all children were
acknowledged as valuable members of the group, and as participants in the discussion.
With these goals in mind, the teachers frequently made a point of verbally recognizing
children who were not frequent contributors. In their interviews, each teacher reflected on

10:

an individual child for whom this recognition was particularly important. Mrs. Ellis
watched over Neal and Olivia; in Mrs. Young's group, Isha was one of the quietest
members. Mrs. Young described a turning point in Isha's emergence as a more involved
member of the class:

She had done the morning artist sheet, and she drew her
picture... usually she wouldn't say much about her picture. But on that
day, it turned into— she said 'it's a mountain with a pool at the bottom.'
And it transpired into— Trip jumped in, and Wade, and Nyla, and they all
had something to say about the picture. And [Isha] was ecstatic. She was
not a talker in that group. But this was a wonderful way for her to feel part
of the conversation, where other times she didn't. . .and it continued for a
week. We wrote a story, all around this one picture... it had so many
literacy components, but also components of just how to be social. And
she was just beaming, because she doesn't usually participate. One day
turned into a weeklong activity. It was important not just for Isha, but for
this group, to be part of a collaboration.
In a similar reflection, Mrs. Ellis described her experience with Neal:

He was not a group kind of guy. And so it was really important
that I take anything he offered me and put it front and center, because it
was a way for him to contribute and for kids to get to know this kind of
quiet kid, and what he knew, and what he could do.

Other children in the group demonstrated similar reticence or lack of experience
in joining spontaneously in the conversation. Both teachers made efforts to include as

104

many of the children's voices as possible in their discussions. The conversation about
sleeping bags that emerged in Mrs. Ellis' morning meeting was one such instance. The
segment below, which represents the final moments of that conversation, provides a brief,
yet significant example of how the children were recognized, even if they were not called
on to speak.

Sleeping Bags: Moving On

March 20

Mrs. Ellis: (To Olivia): Do you think your mom's going to plan some camping trips

for you?

Olivia: (Nods)

Mrs. Ellis: OK. That will be fun.

Mrs. Ellis: OK. Stephen, and then Ellie, and then we're going to go on. So Stephen.

Stephen: Yesterday I saw (...) Yesterday I saw two red breasted robins, and, AND I

have a sleeping/ and I have a tent, and, and/ cause I love sleeping/ in outside.

Mrs. Ellis: Oh you do? That's kind of fun isn't it? Ellie?

Ellie: Urn//// Urn/// Did you know that/ my brother's birthday is in the coldest

season, cause it's in January.

Teachers: Ah, Oh. It is in the cold season.

Mrs. Ellis: All right, now, we need to do our greeting. (To Anita): I said that Stephen

and Ellie were going to be the last and then we're going to go on. Ok, so, um, I'm

sure there will be something else, Anita, that I can call on you on. All right. We're

going to greet. And today, we're going to greet using...

105

At this point in the morning meeting, Mrs. Ellis' group had been discussing
sleeping bags and camping for several minutes. Mrs. Ellis had led the conversation in
turns around the circle, allowing each child to share a comment or description about the
topic. As she finished this cycle, several children raised their hands to add new
comments. Mrs. Ellis wanted to continue with the morning meeting agenda, so she chose
only two students to share their ideas, some of which were naive cohesive attempts:
Stephen embedded his observation of robins into his report about his family's camping
gear, and Ellie announced that her brother's birthday was in the coldest season. Both of
these remarks most likely stemmed from the previous conversation about the arrival of
spring and the various weather conditions in the different seasons, and they were
acknowledged briefly. After those two students made their comments, Anita raised her
hand to add another remark. Mrs. Ellis reminded Anita and the rest of the group that a
limit had been set on new comments. However, she reassured Anita that there would be
an opportunity for her to participate in the conversation later. This brief remark served
the purpose of ratifying Anita's presence in the group, despite the fact that she was not
selected to share a comment at that moment.

The teachers regularly provided opportunities for children to introduce topics into
the conversation, especially with regard to the students whose voices were less dominant
in the group. Mrs. Young's description of how Isha's picture story gave her a chance to
lead an ongoing discussion is one such example. In Mrs. Ellis' group, Olivia rarely
offered a new topic and Mrs. Ellis created openings in the conversation and encouraged
her to do so. In early June, Olivia came to school wearing new shoes, which she proudly
showed to her classmates. The shoes featured small lights that lit up when the heel struck

106

the floor. As the meeting began, Olivia sat on her mat and began stamping her feet to
make the lights flash. In an effort to re-direct Olivia, Mrs. Ellis offered her a chance to
speak. The ensuing conversation resulted in a brief lesson about bragging and opinions:

New Shoes

June 1

Mrs. Ellis: And so, um, yes, you have new shoes on, don't you, Olivia? Let me

finish this explanation and then you can show me how the shoes work. Um,

anyway, Field Day is this afternoon for grades 1-7, and so, if you're staying for

extended day, we're hoping that we might be able to go out and watch a bit of field

day.

LFC: Oh, that will be exciting.

Mrs. Ellis: And so yes, that will be very exciting. Stephen, hang on one second,

because I said the next person was going to be Olivia, who has new shoes. And

would you like to share your new shoes with us?

Olivia: (lifts a foot)

Mrs. Ellis: You were stomping them, so I didn't know if this would be a good time

to hit the floor with them. Why don't you stand up and let us see how they boink.

Olivia: Why?

Mrs. Ellis: 'Cause we'd like to see them.

Olivia: And then the (names other group)?

Mrs. Ellis: No. just our group.

LFG: They're pretty cool, Olivia.

Mrs. Ellis: They are. (gestures for her to jump). One, two, three.

Anita: Do it again, jump. It's like you're flying!

107

Estie: The higher you go, They light up.

Walter: I want to see how they light up.

Mrs. Ellis: Ok, Emily. Would you like to show your shoes, and then I'm going to

call on Stephen. It looks like you have spring shoes on too, or they look like

summer shoes. Do you want to stand up?

Emily: {aside) That's one of my hair rubber bands.

Mrs. Ellis: Could you tell us about your shoes?

(Emily stands up and begins to remove her sandals).

Russell: What the heck are you doing?

Emily: This is how they go. They have Velcro, and this is how I get them off.

Ell ie: And I have// (she holds her foot out into the middle of the circle).

Mrs. Ellis: Yeah, we all can put our shoes out. Like that.

Wesley: I don't even have to do Velcro, or tie them.

Mrs. Ellis (to Michael): What about you, do you have shoes like mine?

Stephen: Hey, Wesley!

Ellie (to Olivia): Can I see how they work?

Michael: I want to see!

Olivia: My shoes are the coolest in the whole entire world.

(Lots of voices talking over each other)

Emily: That's not a very nice thing to say!

Mrs. Ellis: What makes it feel unkind to you, Emily?

Emily: Because/ Because I have some good shoes, and it's not OK to say that in

public.

108

Mrs. Ellis: Oh, well you can just say, or you could maybe just say that that's her

opinion, but you happen to like your shoes. All right, I think we need to do a

greeting.

Mrs. Ellis' choice to call attention to Olivia's shoes in a positive way, rather than
by directly reprimanding her for stamping her feet during the meeting, was typical of the
teachers' approach to their students throughout the year. Mrs. Ellis was clearly aware of
the curiosity Olivia's shoes would generate, and she allowed extra time in the
conversation for several other children to share their own shoes. Olivia's announcement
that her shoes were the coolest in the world drew indignation from her classmates, who
all responded at once, defending their own shoes as being also "cool." Emily's reaction,
in particular, reflected her own social value against bragging or gloating, which had been
on ongoing theme among the children. Mrs. Ellis' approach had been to address this issue
as a lesson in expressing opinions, and continually emphasized that when people
expressed their preferences, these statements should be interpreted as personal views, not
as confrontations. The impact of this decision was that Olivia was ratified as a valuable
member of the community, and she was given a chance to be the focus of interest for the
teacher and her classmates.

Turn-Taking and Topic Management

The transcripts in the analyses of solidarity and ratification include a few
examples of naive cohesive attempts, but I have chosen to focus on these remarks in the
examination of turn- taking because of their potential impact on the sequence and flow of
the group discussions. The children's attention and focus in the meeting, and their
spontaneous remarks, were often influenced by their own experiences, knowledge, and

109

interests. Their attempts to bring prior knowledge into the discussion fit Gee's (1999)
description of linguistic cohesion, despite their often indirect relevance to the topic at
hand. In many circumstances, the teachers eagerly incorporated students' spontaneous
contributions into the discussion. In other cases, the teachers struggled to keep the
conversation on track, despite the children's urges to explore a different topic. In mid-
October, Mrs. Ellis began a morning meeting with a song about acorns, which were
plentiful on the ground around school. After singing the song, she asked the children
what they did when they found acorns on the ground. Her intent was to take a response
from each child around the circle, but Neal and Stephen became focused on a different
topic: '

Acorns

October 12

Mrs. Ellis: All right! Let's get our acorns. Let's get our acorns all ready.

Anita: I know what to do!

Mrs. Ellis: You do? You're really on today, Anita, OK. How does this one start out

Neal: I know it.

Stephen: I have a collection.

Mrs. Ellis: You do?

Neal: I'm an acorn.

Mrs. Ellis: (leads the singing. This is a new song, so she leads by singing one line

and having the children follow).

Mrs. Ellis: How many of you when you're walking along on the street/ notice

acorns? And step on them?

Choral: me/ me/ me

Mrs. Ellis: You notice acorns on the ground? I'll bet you do, Stephen. There are

probably a lot of oaks around, (to the group): What do you do when you see an

acorn?

Stephen: Step on them.

Mrs. Ellis: You like to step on them?

Emily: No! I have/ 1 don't even know when I step on them!

Mrs. Ellis: (...) cause you have something good to say. Wesley?

Wesley: When I see/ acorns on the ground/ 1 pick them up.

Mrs. Ellis: OK, you can collect them.

El lie: (sings the song alone)

Mrs. Ellis: What do you do?

Several voices: (several children are now singing the song)

Mrs. Ellis: Sounds like we want to do that song again. We're going to// Neal/ think

about what you do when you see acorns on the ground? All right? OK, let's sing it

all one more time, and then I'd like to call on Emily, and Anita, and Neal.

Voices: and me/ and me/

Mrs. Ellis: OK! It sounds like people still have reports. OK.

Choral: (they sing the song again).

Mrs. Ellis: Good j A ob. Emily, what do you do when you see acorns

Emily: I like to hear the cru A nchy sound with them, but I also like to have an acorn

collection, and I don't want to step on t A oo many of them.

Mrs. Ellis: Oh. Hmm. Neal, what do you do?

Neal: Weil, I urn, collected a lot of cool stuff on the beach up in Maine/ because I

have a / because up in Maine/ 1 have some st- rock stairs/ and they go all the way

down to the beach, and there's all sorts of pretty rocks//

Mrs. Ellis: uh huh// So when you heard that Stephen was/ that Wesley was talking

about collecting the acorns, it made you think about other kinds of collections that

you have.

Neal: Yeah, Cause I have a whole bag of stuff/ There's a whole bag of nature that I

have from Maine.

Mrs. Ellis: Do you have any acorns from Maine?

Neal: (shakes his head no).

Stephen: Me too.

Mrs. Ellis: No. No acorns? I wonder about

Stephen: (shouting) I've been to Maine before, and I've went to the beaches.

Mrs. Ellis: And there are no acorns?

Stephen: And I've played baseball at the beach.

Mrs. Ellis: OK. I'm going to call on Anita next, because she has her hand up. Ok,

Anita.

Anita: 1/ 1 pick up acorns and I tell to my mom and dad, I found a acorn when they

are not looking.

Mrs. Ellis.: Ohhh. So Ellie,

Ell ie: I tell my parents when I'm gathering acorns. And I pick them up.

Mrs. Ellis: You pick them up. Ok. Stephen?

Stephen: I went to the beach at Maine and I caught a crab.

112

Mrs. Ellis: Oh! My goodness. So you were listening to Neal talk about Maine and

that made you think about a story about crabs in Maine.

Stephen: Yeah

Mrs. Ellis: You know, it's kind of[

Stephen: ]That made me remember that I caught a crab in Maine.

Mrs. Ellis: Oh. OK. Russell, what do you want to say about acorns?

Russell: At Maine, I caught a lobster, and I was catching it.

Mrs. Ellis: OK. Now what do you do when you see acorns?

Russell: I throw them and I see if they land on/ I see if they get to the other side.

Mrs. Ellis: OK! So here's a new idea. Some of you step on them, some of you

collect them, and some like to throw them.

For the first portion of this conversation, each child gave a relevant response
about acorns. When it came to Neal's turn, he chose to take up a sub-topic that had been
introduced and incorporated into Stephen's and Emily's responses, and he described his
vacation house and his rock collection. Mrs. Ellis was able to identify his cohesive
attempt, and she took the time to clarify for Neal and the group how it was that he came
to share this particular remark at this point in the conversation. She then attempted to re-
direct Neal so that he could give a response about acorns, but she was unsuccessful; Neal
did not have any acorns and Stephen excitedly added his own statement about Maine,
which was prompted by Neal's comments. Mrs. Ellis did not acknowledge Stephen's first
two attempts. He then raised his hand and she called on him, and he persisted in his
report about Maine. Mrs. Ellis took up the topic at that point, again tracing the cohesive

113

path for Stephen and the group. After Russell also added his own memories of Maine,
Mrs. Ellis was finally able to re-direct the conversation to the topic of acorns.

As in this example, the children's naive cohesive attempts could often be traced to
an idea, or even a single word, that had been mentioned even in the briefest manner. The
transcript below is an excerpt from the sleeping bag conversation that has been discussed
previously. As Mrs. Ellis made her way around the circle, she came to Emily, who
described her own sleeping bag, then added a new topic into the conversation. Mrs. Ellis
chose to take up a discussion about spring, which led to a naive cohesive attempt from
Walter:

The First Day of Spring

March 20

Emily: And also after I got dressed, 1 was doing a welcome spring ballet.

Mrs. Ellis: Oh. / Why were you doing a welcome spring ballet?

Emily: Because it's the first day of spring.

Mrs. Ellis: Yes, this afternoon/ is the first/ is when spring will officially begin, but

tomorrow we'll do a happy spring day because it will be the first/ full day of spring.

Michael: Will it be warm by/ in the afternoon?

Mrs. Ellis: Isn't that interesting? You would hope that/ spring is sort of a warm

season, but spring starts out kind of on the cool side, and then ends up on the

warm side, in June. So, ah. And then summer starts. [

Walter: ]my/ my

Emily: Like, like March starts like a lion, and ends like a lamb!

Mrs. Ellis: We hope that is true! (laughs) So yes, Walter?

114

Walter: My brother's birthday is in June.

Mrs. Ellis: It is.

Voice: And mine is too.

Emily's remark about the first day of spring, combined with Mrs. Ellis' response,
Michael's question, and Mrs. Ellis' reply, constitute an uptake event. This exchange,
although brief, also served the purpose of adding to the students' understanding of the
seasons.

A second, briefer uptake event occurred as a result of Mrs. Ellis' mention of the
word 'June,' in her explanation of spring. This brief reference most likely prompted
Walter to share the information about his brother's birthday. Although the topic at hand,
the arrival of spring, was not directly related to birthdays, his remark demonstrates an
emerging cohesive awareness, as he was able to relate his own knowledge to a tangential
concept in the topic stream of the discussion. Mrs. Ellis acknowledged Walter's
contribution, but did not take up the discussion beyond a brief acknowledgement,
although she had enthusiastically responded to both Emily's and Michael's comments
about spring.

One of the tensions the teachers in my research site faced in their desire to support
the children's communication and community building was finding a balance between
the ratification goals described above and the need to maintain a sense of order and focus
in the conversations. The following example demonstrates this tension, and provides an
example of the kind of direct instruction in conversational competence that the teachers
practiced throughout the year.

115

Grandma

November 29

Estie: Grandma's not coming to my house.

Mrs. Ellis: Your grandma's not coming to your house for Christmas?

Estie: No.

Walter: I wish my grandmother would come.

Mrs. Ellis: Walter, what are we talking about right now? Who was talking?

Walter: You.

Mrs. Ellis: No, I wasn't talking. One of your friends was talking. Do you know

which one of your friends?

Walter: Wesley.

Mrs. Ellis: No. Close to Wesley.

Walter: Anita.

Mrs. Ellis: No. It was Estie. And she was telling us about something that she's/she's

sad about. About Christmas. When her grandmother won't be there. All right.

S0.//S0 let's read this story When Winter Comes. Wesley?

Wesley: I'm going to see my grandma at her house with my cousins/ for Christmas.

Mrs. Ellis: We'll have a chance to talk more about Christmas plans later. Right now,

look, there are those fall leaves mixed in with the snowflakes, right there on the

title page.

Mrs. Ellis had been reading a book about winter to the group when Estie shared
her news about her grandmother. The subject matter of the book had generated a great
deal of interest; school had just re-opened after Thanksgiving break and the weather was

very cold. The children were excited about the upcoming winter holidays. Estie's remark
about her grandmother drew a response from Mrs. Ellis, but it also prompted Walter to
call out his feelings about his own grandmother. At this point in the school year, Mrs.
Ellis was familiar with the children's personalities and participation patterns; Walter was
one who tended to call out and interrupt frequently. Therefore, she was firm and explicit
in her response to him. She reflected on this exchange later, when asked about how she
addresses children's communication errors:

I tend to get more explicit as a child doesn't get it. For instance, if I

was being that direct about 'that's interrupting, and you're not taking care

of your friends,' it's probably because they've done it repeatedly and they

need my reminders that they have to raise their hand.

Mrs. Ellis' reaction to Walter made it clear that it was Estie's turn to speak, and
that what Estie had to say was important to the group. Her response also served a
ratification purpose by emphasizing to Estie that her comments were valued despite the
interruption from Walter. This exchange serves as one of many to show that the children
did not learn the rules of conversational competence from any single piece of instruction.
When Wesley shared his own comments about his grandmother, Mrs. Ellis stopped the
discussion, this time issuing a more global statement about the topic. The subject of
Christmas was one that had the potential of generating responses from all the children,
and Mrs. Ellis did not want to start that conversation at the time. Instead, she re-directed
the children's attention to the book she was reading.

Turn taking and interrupting were areas of difficulty for many of the children
throughout the year, and the teachers frequently addressed children whose interruptions

117

clearly violated the tone of classroom community and solidarity. On the first day back at
school after February vacation, Mrs. Young's group was energetic and full of news. For
two weeks in February, including the children's winter break, both teachers had traveled
to Reggio Emilia, Italy, for a professional development workshop. When they returned,
they were eager to re-connect with the children and to reinforce the community-building
work that the class had accomplished before vacation. Mrs. Young included the word
'Ciao' as the greeting word on her morning message, and she was eager to get started
with the meeting:

Ciao

February 28

Mrs. Young: Are we having assembly today? [NO] Are we having library [NO].

That would be silly. Let's take a look at our message. Let's take a look at our

message. Nicky and Trip, are you ready? // This is a special word that I wrote in our

greeting, because it's something that people say where I just was.

Nate: Jambo.

Trip: Ciao.

Mrs. Young: Ciao. And Ciao, who?

Louisa: (names their group)\

Voices: (several children shouting the group name loudly).

Mrs. Young: (makes a quiet gesture). You know what? I'm going to stop. // You're

talking out, and you're talking right over other friends. Trip?

Trip: (says name of group).

118

Mrs. Young: That's right. And I have two questions for you, Trip. Where do people

say Ciao?

Trip: Urn...

Mrs. Young: Italy. And that's where Mrs. Ellis and I just got back from. And this is

the other question. When I first introduced this word to you. What do some

families do when they use this word?

Wade: Kiss.

Mrs. Young: That's right. They go 'Ciao!' (demonstrates a hug and kiss). OK. Who

can do the day of the week? Anna?

Although the children's responses were enthusiastic and correct, their voices had
risen far above conversational level and the shouts could be heard in the hallway. Mrs.
Young gave a quiet signal and paused with a disappointed look on her face before saying,
"You know what? I'm going to stop." As the children settled themselves, Trip raised his
hand and looked eagerly at Mrs. Young. His behavior was rewarded not only because the
teacher called on him to answer her question, but because she extended her attention and
addressed a second question to him as well.

Mrs. Young's expectations for her group were consistent throughout the year;
nonetheless, she adjusted her responses to suit the situation. The children's exuberance on
that day in February was due to many factors: they had been away from school for a full
week and were 'out of practice' regarding the rules for class meeting, they were excited to
see each other, and their teacher had returned after a relatively long absence. Mrs. Young
was firm with them because she wanted to make sure that the children quickly
reestablished their proper behavior and because, as she said, she had a lot of material to

119

cover that morning. On other occasions, the children's eagerness to call out answers
received a more gentle response, as it did on the last day of school. The group was
assembled for their final meeting, and Mrs. Young's supervisor, Mrs. Olivetti, leaned into
the room to tell her which child would be first to march in the end-of-year assembly,
which was arranged by alphabetical order:

I'm Second!

June 8

Mrs. Young: Wow, first letter of the alphabet. So why do you think because she has

the first letter of the alphabet is she going first?

Nyla: Because the A is the first one.

Mrs. Young: Yeah. Because her name has the first letter, she's going to be the first

one to go up and shake hands.

Nyla: What about for B?

Mrs. Young: You know what? There are no B's.

LFG: For a last name.

Mrs. Young: That's right.

Trip: My name starts with a C.

Mrs. Young: That's right, Trip, your name starts with a C, and that's why you're

second.

Trip: I'm second!

Nicky: I'm also second!

Voices: (several children call out their initials)

120

Mrs. Young: Can you not shout out, because I have two friends here (indicates
children with their hands raised). Nate, that's right, you're right, but I have two
friends here that are patiently raising their hands. Amanda?

Mrs. Young's reminder was lighthearted as she asked the children to wait their
turns during this exchange. The children's interruptions and overlapping remarks were
happy and not loud or strident as they had been on the day in February, when Mrs. Young
took a much firmer tone to calm her students. Even the briefest interruption was likely to
generate a reaction, as indicated by Mrs. Olivetti's businesslike announcement. This was
the children's first experience with the last day of school, and the morning had been out of
the ordinary since they had arrived. Parents and teachers hugged and shared final
moments, gifts were presented to the teachers, administrators had been in and out of the
room, and the children could barely contain their excitement about the assembly that
would be happening in less than two hours.

On the last day of school, the children began their meeting with a discussion of
their names. As I reviewed the transcripts for this analysis, this topic struck me as
particularly apt. because talking about their names was how they had found their mats to
begin their first meeting together:

This Is My Name!

September 8

Louisa: Mine has my name on it.
Anna: Mine has my name on it
Mrs. Young: That's right.

121

Nate: Can I go sit on the one that has my name on it?

Mrs. Young: That's right, Nate. And thank you. You guys are being so patient while

I set this up. So thank you.

Trip: In my old school, it was in the middle.

Mrs. Young: It was? // You can come right over and find your mat. Your mat will

have your name on it. If you're not sure, you can always ask a teacher.

Voices Overlapping: Whe:re's mine" Here's mine. I can't find mine.

Emmett: Mine has a //

Mrs. Young: What does it have?

Emmett: E-M-M-E-T-T.

Mrs. Young: So let's see. Does this one have a E-M-M-E-T-T?

Uh-huh.

Wade: I don't know where my name is.

Mrs. Young: Wade, is this your mat?[

Wade: [No

Mrs. Young: Is this your mat?

Wade: My name is W-A-D-E.

Mrs. Young: I think you see it. Do you//

Wade: This is my name!

Mrs. Young: That's right. That's where you'll sit.

Mrs. Young: Is this l-S-H-A?

Amanda: I got one over here.

Mrs. Young: Oh wow! You found it.

122

Nine months later, these children have become friends. They know one other's
names and where they sit in the circle. And on this last day of pre-kindergarten, they will
go to the gym and have their names called out to the entire school as the next kindergarten

class.

12:

IV: Discussion and Implications of This Research

Wells (1986), in writing about young children's classroom discourse, argued that
teachers need to model appropriate conversational behaviors and accommodate children's
naive attempts: "Meaning making in conversation should be a collaborative activity. But
where there is a considerable disparity between the participants in their mental models
and their linguistic resources, the more mature participant has to make adjustments to in
order to make collaboration possible" (p. 89). Here, as noted above, is the role of the
teacher as a critical member of the discourse. The teacher must not only interpret
meaning, but instruct children in the proper means of engaging in discourse.

The research that I have described here, both from the literature and my own
investigation, speaks to the complexity and sophistication of language in early childhood
classrooms. What may, on the surface, appear to be a delightful conversation about the
weather, a camping trip, or a flat tire, is in fact an opportunity for children and teachers to
build knowledge together and in the process, to gain practice in the social skill of
discourse. The data suggest several possibilities for further research and for the
development of teaching practices.

Possibilities for Further Research

This research suggests a basis for a longitudinal study. The children in this
classroom experienced a full year of instruction related to communication skills. On the
last day of school, they had not achieved mastery in all of those skills, but they had made
progress. They interrupted less frequently than they did at the beginning of the year, in
part because they had gained a non-verbal skill in the form of the "me-too" gesture. They

124

had established a set of rituals for the structure of Morning Meeting time, and for their
own behavior during the meeting. Their ability to recognize a turn sequence had also
improved over the course of the year. Most of this new knowledge was the result of
explicit and repeated instruction from their teachers. A further study of the group in the
form of additional recordings of the class in Kindergarten and into their elementary
school years could provide data about the long-term effects of this intensive instruction
on the children's emerging communicative competence.

Such a future study could involve quantifying certain elements of conversation,
such as the number of interruptions, or the number of attempted topic shifts, and
comparing the frequency of these events between the original data set and the behavior of
the children in later grades. Methodological and theoretical questions to consider for such
a study would include a determination of which developments should be measured, and
the establishment of a sequence of benchmarks to track children's progress toward full
competence.

In my analysis, I chose not to address issues of gender in the
communicative behavior of the children. I focused instead on the instructional
practices of the teachers in response to the children as a group of classmates, not
as boys and girls with possibly different styles. However, a further investigation
of the data to compare the number and type of responses, spontaneous remarks,
and interruptions by boys and girls could present interesting findings. Such an
examination would involve a study of more than the subset of recordings that I
used in this dissertation, and the data set is certainly rich in potential for
additional work in this area. The transcripts demonstrate a wide range of

125

conversational styles, which might be connected to gender. One area of further
investigation would be to compare the types of spontaneous remarks made by the
boys and girls. Do the girls, as Nicolopoulou (2002) found, tend to focus more on
relational topics, and the boys more on action and movement? Are there certain
categories of topics that appeal more to one gender than another, as demonstrated
by their responsiveness or the frequency of their remarks? Which types of topics
are extended further in the discussion, and by children of which gender?

The research into roles and status in social groups suggests another area for
further study. In the transcripts and analyses of the recordings, as well as in my own and
the teachers' observations, certain children stood out as dominant figures in the group.
As the teachers became more familiar with the children, they tailored their interactions
with the children in response to their established behavior patterns. In other words, a
child who was a frequent interrupter would receive a more stern response than a child
who did not often speak out. At the same time, the teachers were aware of the children
who did not volunteer regularly, and they made a point of encouraging those children's
participation. One question that arises here relates to the impact of temperament on a
child's status in the class. Do the dominant speakers gain control of the conversation? Do
the quieter children exert less of an influence on the group? A possible area for further
analysis might be a more quantitative examination of the recordings, tracking specific
numbers of comments for each child, and then matching them against teacher responses.
This area of research would also be ideal for a case study analysis, perhaps focusing on a
dominant speaker and a reticent speaker in each group, and following those children's

126

conversational performance throughout the year, not just in the Morning Meeting, but in
other aspects of the school day.

Another potential follow-up study would be to analyze the child-generated topic
shifts in the group conversations. In my research, I examined many of the children's
attempts to introduce new topics or to change the topic flow in the discussions, focusing
primarily on the naive cohesive attempts. However, there were many other situations
when a child introduced a new topic so successfully that it took on the primary status in
the conversation. Were these remarks evidence of a high level of competence on the part
of the speaker, an indication of knowing just how to introduce an idea that was so
relevant or compelling that it (and the speaker who introduced the topic) could take
control of the conversation? How could such factors be measured or tracked?

Implications for Curriculum and Instruction

The teachers' emphasis on community, and their focus on group membership and
solidarity in the morning meeting, was evident in all the recordings. The children's
enthusiasm about attendance and their eagerness to connect their own experiences with
those of their classmates were encouraged by the teachers in many instances. "Where's
Russell?" "Where's Louisa?" "Where's Mrs. Young?" the children would ask. They
always seemed aware of who was missing. One strategy that the teachers used to check
attendance (and to reinforce math skills) was to count the people in the group. Mrs.
Young referred to the number of people present as the "magic number" of the day; after
the children had memorized 1 1 as the total number in their group, they cheered if the
magic number came out to 1 1 on any given morning. This spontaneous behavior,

127

encouraged by the teachers, was just one indication of the children's sense of themselves
as a group, and of the importance of each individual in the group.

One of the most successful elements in the teachers' attempt to build solidarity in
group conversations was the "me too" gesture. The children seized upon this hand sign
and used it effectively from the beginning of the year. Although at first, they exaggerated
the gesture and accompanied their hand movements with loud calls of "me too," they
gradually adjusted their behavior and used the signal as a completely non-verbal
message.

In their facilitation of group conversations, Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young were direct
and explicit. They defined and described behaviors such as interrupting or threatening in
great detail and with clear explanations of the impact of those behaviors on the rest of the
group. Whether it was Mrs. Young presenting the purpose and specific finger positions of
the "me too" on the first day of school or Mrs. Ellis explaining what a threat is and why
it's not OK, or either of the teachers emphasizing the importance of waiting for a turn to
speak, these teachers provided direct instruction in the rules of conversation. Their
consistent efforts to provide these explanations were evidence of their belief that
communication skills are a central component of early childhood curriculum.

For Mrs. Young and Mrs. Ellis, content was not always a primary intention in the
morning meeting. Although the morning message included a literacy, mathematics, or
occasionally a science lesson, this content was usually seen as one of many components
in a complete meeting. During the rest of the school day, the teachers continued to
emphasize communication skills, but these skills were then incorporated into instruction
and activities in the content areas. The teachers' belief is that the children would not be

128

able to focus on the content of their lessons if they did not have the foundation of
communication skills. Their convictions about the central nature of linguistic competence
echoes that of French and Song (1998), who argued that "learning in school depends
heavily, sometimes almost exclusively, on learning from language... Thus, the
development of skills that can support and enable learning from language comprises one
of the most fundamental components of school readiness" (p. 413).

The emphasis on teaching communication skills raises questions about whether
and how this type of instruction might be replicated in other settings. The research cited
here about cultural variation in children's linguistic backgrounds, confirmed by the
diversity in conversational styles in my subject group, speaks to the need for teachers to
understand and respond to children's language behaviors. The implications here extend
beyond the superficial knowledge that some cultures value deferential behavior in
children, or that other cultures value assertiveness, or the developmental theorists'
concepts of children's perceptual abilities. Children come together at school from
different cultural and social backgrounds, or with attentional issues, or they may arrive
with substantially more or less vocabulary knowledge than their peers, or different means
of expressing themselves, or different abilities to wait for an adult's attention. All of these
factors, and many more, impact the development of a community of learners.

Mrs. Ellis and Mrs. Young frequently spent time addressing individual students,
and they had the opportunity to learn each child's unique communication needs. Each
teacher was responsible for 1 1 children; this number is approximately half of a typical
classroom size. Their familiarity with the students and their ability to spend considerable
individual time with these children cannot be discounted. For teachers working with

129

larger groups of children, what instructional strategies about conversation might be
reasonably incorporated into the early childhood curriculum? These questions will help
drive further investigations and the development of curriculum initiatives.

As a final comment, Mrs. Ellis, in describing her overarching goals for morning
meeting, spoke about the children and their sense of themselves in the classroom:
There's really so much going on [in the meeting] and I guess I just

want them to be happy at the end. Happy to be coming to meeting, happy

to be together and feeling that they have connections with each other. And

that Fm not doing all the talking.

References

Abbot, J.A. and McCartney, S.J. (2001). Classroom influences on first-grade students'

oral narratives. Journal of Literacy Research 33 (3): 389-421. September, 2001.
Berg, B. (2004): Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. New York: Allyn

and Bacon.
Bloome, D., Carter, S., Christian, B., Otto, S., and Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse

analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A

microethnographic perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blum-Kulka and Snow (Eds.) (2002). Talking to adults: The contribution of multi-party

discourse to language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, G. and Yule, G (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.
Bruner, J.S. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J.S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London, UK: Sage.
Cazden, C.B., John, V.P., and Hymes, D. (1972). Functions of language in the

classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.

Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, N (1968/1972). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

131

Corsaro, W. (1981). Friendship in the nursery school: social organization in a peer

environment. In Asher and Gottman (Eds.) The development of children 's friendships.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Delamont, S. (2002): Fieldwork in educational settings. London: Palmer Press.
Dickinson, D.K. (1991). Teacher agenda and setting: constraints on conversation in

preschools. In McCabe and Peterson (Eds.) Developing narrative structure.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dickinson, D.K. and Snow, C.E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral

language skills in kindergartners from two social classes. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly 2, pp. 1-25
Dunn, J. (2004). Children 's friendships: the beginnings of intimacy. Maiden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.
Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of

understanding in the classroom. London, UK: Methuen & Co.
Edwards, A.D. and Westgate, D.P.G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. London, UK:

The Falmer Press.
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in

everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
French, L, and Song, M-J. (1998). Developmentally appropriate teacher-directed

approaches: images from Korean kindergartens. Journal of Curriculum Studies 30

(4), pp. 409-430.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London,

UK: Routledge.

132

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and

classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadephia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.
Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kim, M-S. (2002). Non-western perspectives on human communication. Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.
Kyratzis, A. (1998). Narrative identity: preschoolers' self-construction through narrative in

same sex friendship group dramatic play. Narrative Inquiry 9 (2), pp. 427-455.
Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan's learning lessons reconsidered: On the differences

between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American

Educational Research Journal 40 (1), 239-280.
Michaels, S. and Cazden, C. (1986). Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for

literacy. In Schieffelin & Gilmore (Eds.), The acquisition of literacy:

Ethnographic perspectives, (pp. 132-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mishler, E. (1991). "Representing discourse: the rhetoric of transcription" Journal of

Narrative and Life History, 1(4), 255-280. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nicolopoulou, A. (2002). Peer-group culture and narrative development. In Blum-Kulka and

Snow (Eds.) Talking to adults: The contribution of multi-party discourse to language

acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ninio, A. and Snow, C.E. (1996). Pragmatic development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

1 -> -V
13.5

Nystrand, M, Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeizer, S., and Long, D. (2003). Questions in time:

Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse.

Discourse Processes 35 (2), 135-198.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B.B. (Eds.).

Developmental pragmatics, (pp. 43-72). New York: Academic Press.
Piaget, J. (1955, 1963). The language and thought of the child. New York: Meridian Books.
Piaget, J. (1969, 2000). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Reidy, J. December 18, 2006 personal communication.
Vasconcelos, T. and Walsh, D.J. (2001). Conversations around the large table: building

community in a Portuguese public kindergarten. Early Education & Development 12

(4), pp. 500-522.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.

London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Vygtosky, L. S. (1934; 1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.
Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Maiden: Blackwell

Publishers.
Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wells, C.G. (1986). The meaning makers: children learning language and using language to

learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zamore, A. August 9, 2006, personal communication.

134

Appendix

135

PERMISSION FOR PARTICIPATION IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION STUDY

A research study about spoken language is being conducted in the pre-
kindergarten classroom. Details about the investigation are provided on
the letter attached to this form.

Please check one of the following:

I give my permission for my child's comments to be

included in this research study.

I do not give my permission for my child's comments to be

included in this research study.

The nature and purpose of this research has been satisfactorily explained
to me. I understand that the investigator will answer my questions that
arise during the course of the research. I understand that, in signing this
consent form, I give permission for the study results to be presented in
written and oral form. I also understand that identifying information about
my child, such as his or her likeness, name, birthdate, or residence, will be
removed before any data is presented, and that my child will be given a
pseudonym in all presentations based on this research.

Parent's Signature
Child's Name
Date

136
December 15, 2005

Dear Pre-Kindergarten Parents,

The director of our teacher training program, Lauren Goldberg, is
currently involved in research for her doctoral degree from Lesley
University. Her interest in the development of social language has found a
focus in children's conversational sharing during morning meeting. As
you can imagine, our pre-kindergarteners offer some remarkable examples
of how young children make linguistic connections between their personal
experiences and the topics raised in the classroom.

I have followed Lauren's interest in the development of social language in
children for the last few years and have encouraged her research. She has
just begun the final phase of her studies, which involves observing and
recording morning meetings to gather examples of social language in a
classroom setting.

Engaged and active teachers are continually asking questions about the
impact of their behavior on the learning of their students. What kinds of
teacher prompts encourage child participation in discussion? What
feedback helps to maintain ongoing discourse on a topic? Lauren's
research will help our associate teachers and our veteran teachers ponder
more deeply the effect of their responses on the language exchanges of
their students.

I encourage you to read Lauren's description of her research and to
complete the release form included in this mailing. No child in the
classroom will be identified in the final research project. There is no
intervention on Lauren's part. She is only recording the ongoing
discussion during morning meeting.

We are pleased to support this research project. It is yet another indication
of the depth of care given to the learning process here at [Name of School].

Sincerely,

Lenesa Leana

Table 1: Transcription Markers

Right- facing brackets identify places where a speaker's turn is being

interrupted or where overlapping speech occurs.

Left-facing brackets indicate the interruptor/overlapper's speech.
= An equals-sign indicates latched speech; situations when there is no pause

between speakers.
/ A single slash indicates a brief pause.

// More than one slash indicates a longer pause.

(...) An ellipsis inside parentheses indicates a segment of indistinguishable speech.

Fa:vorite A colon in the middle of a word indicates that the speaker extends or elongates

the pronunciation of a word or syllable.
We A ather A caret inserted in a word indicates that the speaker's pitch or tone rises to

place stress on a syllable or word.
[name of town] A bracketed comment indicates a remark that was stricken in order to protect

the speaker's identity.
(laughs) Text in italics indicates non-verbal or non-linguistic communication acts.

3HC3R-9I

D 113T 02b0A0fl 3

LESLEY UNIVERSITY

FOR REFERENCE

Do Not Take From This Room

LUDCf- <

Lesley ,

30 Mell

Cambric. ^e, MA 02138-2790